digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Exxon shatters all-time profit record

money.cnn.com — Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • PolarisX, on 02/02/2008, -28/+279Exxon keeps posting record prices in the BILLIONS, while our gas prices continue to skyrocket.

    Something doesn't seem right here...
    • anatraj, on 02/02/2008, -18/+84Exxon keeps posting record profits in the billions, BECAUSE our gas prices continue to skyrocket.
      • imikedaman, on 02/02/2008, -4/+33That isn't true. Reports of Exxon's profit margins for the past year vary from around 7.6-9.8%. This means that for every dollar of gasoline sold, they make about 8 to 10 cents as profit. Gas prices around here are roughly $2.90 per gallon so that implies that Exxon is paying about $2.65 per gallon. They're paying more than twice what *we* used to pay for gas a few short years ago!

        The reason behind the record profits is actually twofold: (1) demand in the gasoline industry tends to remain fairly consistent in the long-term, and (2) inflation - 40 billion dollars this year is actually worth less than the 39 billion they made last year.
        • cgm1985, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2A few points:
          1) demand for oil has increased exponentially over the long term (did you mean short?).
          2) supply has plateaued and some believe it will begin to decrease soon(peak oil).
          3) higher prices due to increasing demand has made more expensive methods of oil recovery profitable, driving up the margins to a fairly constant level
    • skidme, on 02/02/2008, -15/+29Here's the thing. Exxon swears that it doesn't inflate prices but adjusts them to fit supply/demand. If that were true, wouldn't their profits remain constant?
      • jasqwerty, on 02/02/2008, -4/+82>>If that were true, wouldn't their profits remain constant?

        1) That would only be true if demand remained constant. Exxon profits on a per gallon basis. They sell more gallons, they make more profit, they sell less, less profit.

        2) Inflation. The numbers might change from year to year with nothing changing in real terms.

        Last year, they had a profit of 39.5 billion, this year, 40.6. That's a 2.7% increase. Inflation was 4.1%. This means that Exxon actually earned less money than last year.
        • icebrk, on 02/02/2008, -3/+31nice to see an intelligent comment showing understanding of economics in our current day.
        • douggmc, on 02/02/2008, -9/+6... and that means many(most) employees who got no raise in pay ... in actuality got a decrease in income of 4.1%. I'm as capitalist as they come folks, but the giant corporate power system we have built in this country in the last 50 years needs some serious manhandling for their lack of ANY social responsibility. The federal government is the only one that can do that. Vote accordingly!
          • jasqwerty, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1>>I'm as capitalist as they come folks

            LOL, unless you're delusional you could honestly be Marx's grandson. Let's see, you talk about 'social responsibility' and 'government being able to fix it'. SOCIALISM SCUM.

            Yeah, fantastic idea kiddo...

            >>. and that means many(most) employees who got no raise in pay

            If you're not happy with your pay, quit. Don't have any marketable skills to leverage pay? Too bad, get some. Can't? Then why the ***** should I care about keeping you alive? You're literally societal dead weight.
          • bagelmaster, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2jasgwerty, disagreeing is ok, but calling someone "socialism scum" isn't. Dugg down for that alone...
      • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -1/+8no, supply and demand don't adjust to keep profits the same especially in the market for a limited resource. If tomorrow, there were 1 billion more motorists on the road, the demand for oil would go through the roof while supply would pretty much be constant so in order for supply and demand to equalize, prices would have to rise significantly. The cost of removing the oil from the ground does not change based on fluctuations in demand so if there revenues are rising from higher prices and costs are constant then profits must be rising. In fact, you can mathematically prove that profits are convex in prices.
        • cgm1985, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1That is true however, as the oil price increases, more expensive methods of oil extraction become profitable (tar sands in canada, texas oil fields being reopened...), these drive the profit margin down.
    • fuzzmeister, on 02/02/2008, -8/+7The energy business is fantastic for those involved, it's one of the few businesses in which you have a consistent incentive to keep supply artificially low. For instance, no new oil refinery has been built in the US since 1976.
      • Richandler, on 02/02/2008, -3/+16That wasn't an oil company decision though. That was a government decision. Just like it's a government decision not to drill in alaska where gas would become dirt cheap if we opened that up. It's also the governments decision not to build nuclear. The government does not respect property rights.
      • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -3/+11because no one wants a new refinery built in their backyard. Oil companies have petitioned many a time only to be turned down by local governments to build new refineries. People are too afraid of it affecting their house prices.
    • SilverStandard, on 02/02/2008, -8/+3Go video google The Energy Non-Crisis. Ok? Go do it now.
    • poopz, on 02/02/2008, -0/+16Think about the nature of the oil industry. Everyone buys it, no matter what the price. Everyone in this country needs it, even if they don't drive a car. Every form of transportation or every product on your shelf, oil was involved in some way.

      It's just a hot commodity that we will buy no matter the supply, demand, prices, or whatever. THATS why Exxon has the biggest profit ever, not because of some uber secret Bush conspiracy
    • Picaroon, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1http://taxprof.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ga ...
    • Daedalus17, on 02/02/2008, -3/+8You do realize that demand for oil on the global market is also reaching all time highs right? China, India, and Europe are demanding much more than they used to. When you increase demand and the supply stays constant prices are sure to rise. This isn't some grand conspiracy. Just supply and demand at work.
      • atticus8, on 02/02/2008, -3/+4You shouldn't rule out conspiracy - not some "grand conspiracy", but collusion within industries. I work at a firm that represents companies in prosecuting antitrust actions. If conspiracies to maintain prices artificially high didn't happen constantly, me and all the other people at my firm would be out of a job. But we're not, because they do.
    • david76, on 02/02/2008, -3/+6Oil is a commodity. ExxonMobil doesn't set the price the market does, via traders. This isn't some grand conspiracy. It's called supply and demand. Increasing demand from the US (read SUVs) + declining supply from the "cheap sources" + increasing demand from Chindia = higher oil prices = higher profits. If you produce the same amount, but the amount you get paid because of higher commodity prices increases, you make more money. This is the same logic that goes into any commodity pricing.
    • legendxx, on 02/02/2008, -2/+9Exxon's profit is in the 8-12% range of their total revenue.. this is totally within the moral and ethical bounds. It might be nice if they took some actions to help low income families and whatnot but you can't blame them for posting these profits.
    • RealHyperX, on 02/02/2008, -2/+5Apple makes billions, but no one complains.
      • joot2112, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5I don't complain because I don't have to buy anything Apple. I can't really get on without gasoline, though... and the companies are all allowed to raise the price to whatever they want. When all of the companies raise the prices, what choice do we have? Even if I bike to work, the price of everything goes up as a result, because companies have to compensate for the cost of gas used in shipping.
        • HeroreV, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1"... and the companies are all allowed to raise the price ..."

          Are you suggesting that the companies should not be allowed to raise their prices? Do you have any idea what that would result in? Plentiful but expensive gasoline is a thousand times better than cheap gasoline that you can't find anywhere. Price caps just don't work.
    • hmunkey, on 02/02/2008, -5/+3***** EXXON!
      • mike17032, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Your well thought out and insightful comment added so much to the topic, thank you for sharing it. And it was very nice of you to post to paste the samething from your clipboard into 4 comments in this same story, thanks for making digg a better place.

        Now go take a ***** nap kid, adults are talking here.
    • mike17032, on 02/02/2008, -5/+2Thats because you ***** failed econ 101. Take an online class and figure it the ***** out, supply and demand isnt a big ***** mystery,

      And btw, Exxon's profit margin is smaller than most companies.
    • KLowD9x, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2I hope we see 10 dollar a gallon gas in the next few years.

      It will FORCE people to conserve what they have and not be such wastrels.

    • joot2112, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1The price of a barrel of oil is what's causing your gas to be expensive. *waves hands* Pay no attention (only cash or credit) to the man behind the curtain... !
  • blueskydiver76, on 02/02/2008, -23/+184The rich keep getting richer...soon there will be no middle class.
    • brnagi, on 02/02/2008, -4/+25Unfortunately money is power, nobody cares about the middle class anymore.
      • ChaosMotor, on 02/02/2008, -3/+27The middle class does. And the lower class wants to be more. Money isn't power, people are. When we realize that WE are in charge, not slips of paper, we will finally be able to assert ourselves.
    • brokenspatula, on 02/02/2008, -9/+2There has been an increase in in population of those that would fit into the middle class, however wealthy people are becoming more wealthy. Get your facts straight. There are more middle class now than 20 years ago.
    • ZenPirate, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3Usually what happens next is the last remnants of the middle class would inspire the poor to revolt, but I don't see that happening here. Rather, i see a Romanesque collapse from within.
    • notque, on 02/02/2008, -6/+15There is no middle class. There's a working class, and an owning class.
      • Zecchetti, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5So true, soon that'll be the case the world over. The ratio between the working class and the owning class will be like 95:1
    • Compuwiz, on 02/02/2008, -16/+9This is why Ron Paul needs to be seriously considered for President of the United States.
      • provost, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5right, see, because ron paul doesn't think that corporations should be unregulated and be able to make as much profit at the expense of everyone who is forced to use said products. If there is one thing I know about ron paul, its that.
        • j.carcinogen, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Actually these corporations own the politicians. They are profiting from the US governments actions and that includes your beloved Obama.

          youtube Eisenhower farewell address.
      • theslip, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6Are you ***** kidding me? Do you even know Ron Pauls views or are you just hopping on the bandwagon?
        The only kind of person who votes for Ron Paul is someone who thinks they know more about politics than they actually do. His base is among the dumbest America has to offer. It seems like on every single article on Digg, some dumbass has to jump in with "hurr if Ron Paul were president it wouldn't be like this amirite?" ***** you, uneducated yokels.
      • mike17032, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7The saddest thing about you ***** retarded ronbots is that you dont even understand the damn platform your moonbat master is running on.

        If you are going to spam digg about a topic, at least understand the damn thing. Pathetic.
    • Dreamfiend, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5if someone cared about the middle class then who would be taking care of the rich?
    • freezeout, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2there has to remain a "middle class" because these are the people supporting the upper class. rich people don't work, they just collect. some suckers have to do double the work so that they can support their family + an entire group of parasites. those suckers are most of the middle class and without them rich people are in trouble.
    • skyshock1, on 02/02/2008, -8/+2Dumbass. The reason the middle class is disappearing is because they're all moving into the UPPER class and not counted as middle class anymore. This is somehow a bad thiing???
    • Profiler38, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2well i sure hope i get to move up with the rich class then.
    • heucuva, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0That's the entire goal of the Neocon agenda; they got away with it, too. We've already surpassed the critical point for resolving this mess. The way things are going, we will be in a depression so deep, in fifteen years, that martial law will be enforced across most of the country. That's when the "cold" civil war will end and a full-fledged one will begin.

      When that happens, I'm probably going to convert to Buddhism and pray for Rebirth as an inanimate object.
    • RepublicansSuck, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Oh, but they always say it's because of "a shortage" or "a refinery broke down."

      Yeah, my ass.
      ***** you Exxon. I might believe the ***** if you weren't making record profits at the same fricken time.
  • sdbyrd, on 02/02/2008, -15/+42makes me sick
    • hmunkey, on 02/02/2008, -5/+1***** EXXON!
      • jonnyboy1544, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Grow up. Play the market. It's fun.
        • spawnfree, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1everyone can win.
          oh hang on.
          i mean ***** everyone below me on the social ladder.

          go live in india; see where this logic leads.
    • jonnyboy1544, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1Really? That's probably since you didn't invest in Exxon. I did :)
    • Speaking, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1yeah, but what are their profit margins(this is a serious question, as I don't know)? If you ran a small business what would you want your profit margins to be?
  • snotrokit, on 02/02/2008, -17/+251Mission Accomplished
    • caferrell, on 02/02/2008, -4/+18Who says the Global War O Terror™ isn't working?
    • djAnakin, on 02/02/2008, -18/+5Wow. How original. You're the first person to quote that. Excellent job. We're all impressed by your incredible wittyness.
      • apavluck, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7I was impressed. It was funny! Until I realized how true it was...then it was just sad.
      • digitalarcanum, on 02/02/2008, -0/+7at first I was all like :D
        then I was all like D:
      • bwa236, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5wittiness

        Use a spell-check next time you want to be a sarcastic ***** (such as the one built into digg's commenting system...or the funny red dotted line underneath a misspelled word in Firefox)
        Oh, and call Rosy Palm over, I think you need a pick-me-up.
      • Bilabrin, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Actually, this was a well timed comment and I got a real chuckle out of it so consider yourself officially disagreed with!
    • hmunkey, on 02/02/2008, -4/+5***** EXXON!
  • DLRULZ, on 02/02/2008, -47/+82Exxon should be required to invest 3/4 of that profit into clean energy research and production...... but it won't happen.
    • daniel2e, on 02/02/2008, -16/+38So it's the role of government to decide for businesses how they ought to reinvest their earnings?

      And he's got 9 diggs....that's quite alarming.
      • notque, on 02/02/2008, -17/+11Good, you need to be alarmed because the entire concept of corporations is flawed.
        • carpespasm, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6no, the concept is good, the implementation, where they're allowed the same rights as actual people and are allowed to out-lobby real people for their interests is the problem.
      • jjb123, on 02/02/2008, -12/+8He never even mentioned the government. He just meant it was the right thing to do, but Exxon won't do it.
      • mike17032, on 02/02/2008, -9/+4This is digg, communism shouldnt shock you here. A lot of people still in high school are mad because some people are a lot more successful than they will ever be.
    • loopist, on 02/02/2008, -4/+4jjb123...who the hell do you think would be able to "require" them to re-invest in clean energy...hmmm, maybe the government?
    • Lonyo, on 02/02/2008, -4/+3You do realise that oil won't last forever, right?
      They won't invest 3/4 in clean energy because they need to invest in other things, such as finding new sources of oil. Stop buying it, they will stop looking for it.
      They also probably ARE investing quite a lot in clean energy. As a big corporation based on oil, they know it won't last forever, and they know they have lots of money, so they are almost certainly already diversifying in some way into new areas such as clean/renewable energy to allow their company to be competitive in the future when demand for oil drops and people want clean and renewable energy.
      Companies like BP are already doing this, and I assume Exxon are as well.
    • krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I'd rather pay my money into new companies that demonstrate a clear motive to stabilize the environment and raise quality of life for all parties involved in their operation, having nothing at all to do with fossil fuels.
      • inane, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Good, then stop driving a gas powered car. It starts with you!
    • mike17032, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3I agree! We should take the profits of the capitalist pigs and redistribute it around to everyone! Those damn assholes, how dare they make a profit in a free market! We need to make sure everyone is equally poor and standing in the same bread line.

      Wait, this kind of idea sounds kind of familiar..... Comrade.
    • willhaynes, on 02/02/2008, -3/+0Exxon is already investing BILLIONS in clean energy...
      • jitterbits, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Like "clean coal"? lol
        • bagelmaster, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1That commercial (I don't know if Exxon did it or not) made me laugh when I saw it. Yes... replace fossil fuels with "cleaner" fossil fuels. BRILLIANT!
    • inane, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I think you should have to invest 3/4 your income in clean energy research.
  • redxninja, on 02/02/2008, -16/+60Sugar Daddy Dick Cheney got their backs.
  • Napoleone, on 02/02/2008, -21/+33Are there no entrepreneus and creative minds on the side in opposition to the oil industry? Why would it be their responsibility to sabotage their own industry by diminishing their profits? It's up to US to put them out of business through competition.

    How many of you are invested in competing fuel technologies? I'm willing to wager, not many. You can't just spend your time complaining and wishing the government would do something about your problems. Take some initiative and bring about the change yourself.
    • sherrife, on 02/02/2008, -16/+11Not everyone has thousands of dollars of loose change to invest in the share market, or in starting their own company. Far out, the elitist ignorance of your post makes me sick.
    • megabytehl, on 02/02/2008, -15/+12...wow. you are an ignorant *****. don't trip over your ego on the way out.
    • guyincognitoo, on 02/02/2008, -8/+16I would invest in alternative fuel technologies, if I had any money left after paying for gas.
      • jeffiek, on 02/02/2008, -2/+7Gas takes a big chunk of your income????

        Look at your TAX bill.
        And don't forget that the government makes far more per gallon in tax than the oil companies make in profit, and it doesn't matter to them which company you buy from
        • notque, on 02/02/2008, -4/+3The government just works for the corporations, so pitting them against each other is foolish. They work together.
    • Napoleone, on 02/02/2008, -3/+14@sherrife, megabytehl, guyincognito

      Elitist? Try realistic. You're not going to chance upon change. You have to make it happen for yourself.

      You say you don't have thousands of dollars to invest, but I think you're being very short sighted. There are several dozen people, in this thread alone, that feel the way you do. If you all banded together you could raise a couple grand and send it over to a company devoted to fuel R&D.

      Use your available resources and stop complaining about the resources you lack. Cos' that'll get you nowhere.
      • sherrife, on 02/02/2008, -4/+5I agree, we have to make change happen. But we have a different vision of change comrade...

        How about we band together to kick out the CEO's, allow the workers to run the plants themselves, and we produce oil for people, rather than for profits? That sounds more like something I would support. ;)
        • notque, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2That sounds like an excellent idea. People running their own businesses. The workers. No controllers.
        • strafefire, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Obviously comments coming from people who have never run or owned a business, business education, no market education, nothing!

          Why the CEO makes so much and the workers make nothing?

          Why don't the workers quit if they feel so discriminated against pay wise? Or better yet, negotiate for better benefits on a personal basis. I worked in the oil industry for a while, and made 2x time more than my own BOSS because I went out and made myself INVALUABLE to the company -- at which point I was offered a better job somewhere else anyway, so I quit.

          BTW it is more risky to work for someone, than it is to work on your own business. It is also easier to invest on your own than it is to have someone do it for you. But many of you who read this won't get that and just bury me anyway, so...
        • genepooldesign, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Strafrfire is right. When I went to work for the company I am with now, I marched into my interview, laid out my skills, told them how I could benefit their company, and promptly told them what my pay would be upon hiring me. The man respected that, and gave me what I required. I didn't go in there with the attitude that I'd take whatever they were willing to give me. My point is, things need to be approached in such a way that they realize that they are benefiting from your presence. Do it yourself, and it gets done right. More to the point of why I agree with strafefire, those CEO's make so much because 99 percent of the people that work for them didn't take control of their own hiring.
    • cyberdork, on 02/02/2008, -9/+5Are you kidding me? Before investing I look at the science and it tells me there is nothing which comes even close to oil. Nothings will ever be as profitable. You dig a hole at the right place and free energy just comes shooting out of it, ready to be consumed. Sure, alternative energy sources are available, but they will never be able to complete with oil when it comes to profitability.

      The only thing which MIGHT be able to challenge oil is fusion energy, but that's at least 30-50 years away. I'm a big fan of the ITER fusion project. A project which is only possible thru PUBLIC funding. No businessman in his right mind would ever spend $15billion on a project which MIGHT result in a return on investment in 50 years or later. And that is why we need publicly funded research.

      By the way, companies like Exxon make such huge profits thanks to people like Napoleone who advocate complete deregulation. A completely 'free' market always leads to the formation of cartels or monopolies, simply because the big fish can eat up all the small fishes. Just look at history and read up on times when regulation of markets was non existent, you will frequently come across this term: "cornering of a market". And what's up with this idea that some small Mom-n-Pop shop might be able challenge multi-billion corporations if the markets were just less regulated? Are you really that naive? In todays globalized economy you need gigantic investments to just grab 1% of any market. Actually as a small buisnessowner you biggest dream is not to challenge the big fishes, it's being bought out by the biggest fish!

      A here is nice example of how deregulation goes wrong: Here in Germany private TV-station ownership was heavily regulated in the 80s and early 90s. With satellite and cable TV becoming more widespread and inexpensive around a dozen private stations established themselves. Then after heavily lobbying by media corporations almost all regulation was abolished in the late 90s. And as a result all private TV stations in Germany are now either owned by the Bertelsmann or the Springer corporation. Luckily we still have the publicly funded stations!

      So please Napoleone, take your utterly naive Ron-Paul-Free-Market ideology and shove it you know where!

      /rant
    • ShnowDoggie, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Ok, maybe true. But why then do they get ridiculous tax breaks that no other industry gets? Is it up to the US to put them into mega profits through tax legislation?
    • sonofblacula, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7You guys are acting like illiterate, closed-minded "intellectual elitists". Kick out the CEO's and produce oil for the people? Are you serious? Why don't I come into your job, kick you out, and take your paycheck? Oil industry execs are, sadly, also human beings and we can't exterminate them. America's economic strength has always been based on free capitalism, and you can't just up and start a communist revolution because of a few companies that manouevre well and take advantage of the system. If you don't like how things are, go to college and get a degree in business or chemical engineering and do something. Work more, save up some money, and donate or invest in things you believe in. I'm sure the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell or Exxon don't see what they are doing as evil. They are working in the best interest of their and their shareholders' wallets. That is what they are paid to do. It's legal, and there is nothing wrong with it. Don't like it? Do something about it and quit bitching, you lazy bleeding-heart pussies. You give liberals a bad name!
    • vertinox, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Well for one... When Peak oil happens, it will mean they'll go bankrupt.
    • antoniuk, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4Hey dumbass it is our government's job to ensure fair market value on goods and services. Too bad most of our government has whored themselves to the oil industry and are turning a blind eye to this unfair practice of gouging prices and unchecked profits.

      IF an audit ever was made about this I would assume over half of our government officials would be guilty of swaying votes in favor of the oil industry.

      We have had the same thing going on in the past in this country with things like Standard Oil and Teapot Dome we have just learned to spin it better.

      There is no competition for the vast majority of Americans without adequate public transportation so all we can do is start demanding change from our government who now controls oil and suppresses alternatives to it.
    • digitalarcanum, on 02/02/2008, -2/+5stop buying SUV's. ***** seriously.
    • Icyfenix, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2I only buy from QT, which practically exists for the benefit of it's employees. They offer benefits and tuition reimbursement to it's PART TIME employees.
      Gas is expensive, but if I'm paying for someone's college every time i buy it it's not as much of a sting.

      EDIT: Please note I said practically. no one said they were perfect, just better.
    • captainboog, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3there have been thousands of people who did exactly this, but were shut down by thugs. Thugs sent from the government or large energy corporations/cartels. It's basically a mob business.
  • ussoldier, on 02/02/2008, -19/+10STOP BUYING GAS at riddiculously high prices. For real.
    • sherrife, on 02/02/2008, -7/+15Not everyone lives within walking/biking distance of everything they need. Rather than attack people for using a resource, how about attacking the ***** company for being self-interested and socially-destructive.

      Oh, and the system of capitalism that encourages corporate greed and corruption.
    • phenry50BMG, on 02/02/2008, -2/+7Last time I checked, my car and my bike need gas to work. I'm guessing you have an alternative plan?
      • wendelgee2, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1We have several alternative plans, some better than others, and the Right obstructs all of them.
        • TheCasablancan, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2As a serious question, how would you make plastic without petroleum? Oil isn't only about gasoline or diesel. We need it in many many different way.
          • wendelgee2, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2There are already corn and soy-based plastics, not to mention that rubber and latex are plant-based products. But if we were only using petroleum for plastics and not for fuel, we'd be in decent shape for a good long time, and if we had better recycling initiatives, the demand for new plastic would be kept very low.
        • wendelgee2, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I shouldn't have made that so partisan...it's just frustrating sometimes.
    • wonderchemist, on 02/02/2008, -10/+2He said STOP BUYING gas AT HIGH PRICES, not walk or ride a bike.
      • siszam, on 02/02/2008, -1/+15Lead us to the low priced gas then. Tell us where to find it.
    • carterx, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Ok, let me see.... the cheapest gas for me is only the next province over, so 200 km there and 200 km back. SWEET !!!!, thanks for the great idea ????
    • Rooster99, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2How insightful! I guess I will only buy my gas at a reasonable price instead and Ill see how that goes!
    • RepublicansSuck, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1LET'S STOP BREATHING AND CONSUMING WATER WHILE WE'RE AT IT TOO!!

      [/sarcasm]
  • elliotxhyde, on 02/02/2008, -10/+74Profits = GOOD
    Profits brought about by Government Intervention = BAD
    • notque, on 02/02/2008, -11/+9The whole system of corporations profiting off the work of others is faulty. We need to get back to taking care of the people who work to create something. Not taking care of the people who stop by once in awhile to make sure you're making them a profit.
      • leftyslament, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2Can someone explain to me why notque is getting buried? Why should profits come before people?
        • Jobu71x, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0Because, without profits, there are no companies. No companies, no jobs. He is asking for a solution incompatible with human nature.
      • Bilabrin, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1Sentiment alone goes nowhere. Propose a system please which will accomplish what you propose. I am genuenly interested.
        • leftyslament, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Socialism.
          • Jobu71x, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0As soon as you can take people out of the equation, you may have a shot.
    • digitalarcanum, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6BEER GOOD. FIRE BAD FIRE BAAAAD!
  • phenry50BMG, on 02/02/2008, -12/+15Queen Beatrice of Royal Dutch Shell will always get her family's cut of the profits. I've been playing chess for many years and haven't seen a game played as well as this one.

    Our queen is gone. Our rooks are gone. We only have the knights and bishops to defend us as the NWO marches in. I feel sorry for you who live in a highly populated area. You are the pawns who will drop first. I hope that cradle to grave government is everything you hoped it to be! You're going to find out what life is like when the coin flips!

    RIP America.............until our next revolution.......
    • ChaosMotor, on 02/02/2008, -0/+9"until our next revolution......."

      Yeah yeah I'm workin on it as fast as I can.
    • Picaroon, on 02/02/2008, -7/+4Dude, you need to see a psychologist
    • ultraJesus, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3Rooks are only really useful for cutting off angles anyway.
    • jaydoj, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2checkmate.....watch zeitgeist, it oughta help
  • turnthepage, on 02/02/2008, -44/+36Get a job.

    Buy stock in Exxon.

    Then you'll have a slightly different perspective.
    • CTK14A, on 02/02/2008, -8/+9Kids these days...
    • tinko, on 02/02/2008, -6/+21OR

      Quit your job.

      Buy a bike.

      Start growing weed, it'll be decriminalized soon.
      • ChaosMotor, on 02/02/2008, -0/+15And if worse comes to worse, you can eat it, or make a shirt out of it, or... wait!!! MAKE ***** FUEL WITH IT!
      • Evermin7, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Need a roommate?
      • bieber, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5...and then your homegrown supply won't be worth *****, because it'll be mass-cultivated on farms just like tobacco...
        • mike17032, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3Shhh dont crush the dreams of all those high school rebels. They are so forward thinking.
        • atticus8, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1I drink from my legal, glass-bottled drug to the hope that what you say, bieber, might come true.
        • jitterbits, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2It will still be smokable, right? Doesn't seem worthless to me.
    • ChaosMotor, on 02/02/2008, -6/+21Participating in the system will not fix the system.
      • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -8/+6what? What's wrong with Exxon making money? They pump million of barrels of oil out of the ground per day and distribute it to hundreds of thousands of different stations across the county and only charge $3 or so for a gallon of the stuff.
        • DeadFox1, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Actually, they only charge about half of that, our government TAXES the other half....
    • smookyfufu, on 02/02/2008, -11/+6Exxon shares are almost 90 dollars each and its not like you can buy 1 or 2 and sit on them. Your post is unrealistic and stupid.
      • RunawayElf, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7If I had a job where I only made 90-180 to invenst in my retirement over the course of the job, I'd probably quit... Your post is unrealistic and stupid.
      • Antialias, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Actually you can, online trading sites like sharebuilder.com let you buy fractions of shares even, you could invest $10 if you wanted to, if the stock price doubles, you double that $10. Minus a $4 per buy in of course, so it makes sense to buy as much as you can at once, but even like $100 gets the fee down to a small percentage.
      • atticus8, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Berkshire Hathaway Class A shares are almost $140,000 each. You know what rich and smart investors do? They buy 1 or 2 and then sit on them. Now who's post is unrealistic and stupid?
    • JStraum, on 02/02/2008, -1/+14Had a job, but they gave it to Hani over in Bangladesh. Actually asked me to train the guy long distance - told them to go ***** themselves. Not interested in another corporate job - equivalent to legalized slavery.

      Been doing OK freelancing but now can't buy stock because 2 weeks ago my wife just lost her job too - company needed to show more profits so they cut 52 jobs - 11.5 years of excellent service down the tubes...offered her a different job for 1/2 the salary - told them to go ***** themselves and took their goddamn severance package...

      Your perspective will change when you get your dose - guaranteed just a matter of time. Either that or you will change your tune willfully when you realize America is getting ***** in the ass dry. be glad you will be able to cash those Exxon shares in - Can you sleep at night feeding this machine? It's almost becoming like investing in tobacco companies. Cough cough - Oh but anything for a buck right?

      Next on Faux news - How to ***** your fellow American deep in the ass and feel good about it because after all, they are just being helpless and weak...just turn your head, maybe all this mess will not effect you...
      • dotbacher, on 02/02/2008, -5/+2Sounds like your family should get some better skills, so you don't keep getting fired.
      • Jobu71x, on 02/05/2008, -1/+0If you ran the company, and to stay afloat, you had to cut 52 jobs. I am sure you would not hesitate. When your job set can be performed equally as well by someone in Bangladesh, you need to follow dotbacher's advice.
      • mbmiles88, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0maybe you and your wife should have gone to college....
    • digihoffa, on 02/02/2008, -4/+4Eat ***** ~ And die!
    • maddla, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5Sure... once you become the owning class, you don't give a ***** about the little guy anymore.
    • KidSheik, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2I have a job, thank you.
      Buy stock in an ethical company instead, then you'll have a different story.
      Maybe you'll be able to sleep at night.
  • keyboardduder, on 02/02/2008, -10/+2Why is this news? Of course they're rolling in it!
  • Rikushix, on 02/02/2008, -7/+63Funny how Exxon breaks records in the US the same day Shell breaks records in Britain.
    • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -3/+6that's not funny, it's the result of much higher commodity prices such as oil...it is lifting up the profits of all companies in the sector
      • Jobu71x, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0No, it is because they have sold more gallons of gas. Taking into account inflation, Exxon profited less this year compared to last. Exxon's profit is a function of volume of units sold rather than price.
    • BigBallistix, on 02/02/2008, -0/+8Actually it's the result of many companies choosing the same day to release their annual reports on profit. The quarterlies were done and now so are the annuals. This had been customary for quite a while.
    • forand, on 02/02/2008, -6/+2Shell is a dutch company not british.
      • rob3, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7Shell is a Dutch-British company and is floated on the UK stock market. You shouldn't hang everything on just what it's called.
    • david76, on 02/02/2008, -0/+7Any company that has a fiscal year which aligns to the calendar year releases profits around this time. It's partially regulatory, partially customary.
  • mooseontheloose, on 02/02/2008, -44/+63This is ridiculous! A company made a profit and I didn't even get rich off of it. Clearly anybody who is richer than I obtained their wealth in an illicit and unfair manner, therefore I request - nay, DEMAND, that the government strip them of all the profits of their labor and redistribute it to ME! That is the only fair conclusion I can draw from this situation!
    • poopz, on 02/02/2008, -8/+7Yeah really so many illogical people here on Digg, I don't expect anything more though

      It's a product that literally every American needs daily, whether it was their form of transportation, the products at the store that got there through combustion engines, whatever. It's obvious that massive profits can be made off of this commodity
    • iloveliberals, on 02/02/2008, -3/+12You don't seem to realize that I have a God-given right to buy products, be they gasoline, shoes, or ipods, at what I consider to be a fair price. If greedy capitalists refuse to sell me these products at a price I consider to be fair, we the masses will employ the government of this free country to punish those bastards, and bring them to justice. Unite, comrades!
      • aloser, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5You win at sarcasm.
      • bagelmaster, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2I know it was sarcasm, but I kind of agree. We do and SHOULD have a right to fair prices on everything. Except with oil/gas it's hard to boycott and force prices down because we all depend on it for everything.
        • cgm1985, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Fair for who? You are not entitled to anything, let alone a fixed price for anything. If supply is limited, is it really better for SOME people to have a RIGHT to a fair price on it? You have a RIGHT to something in the ground or under the ocean in some foreign country, at the price that you believe is fair, at the expense of anyone else who may want it at market price? That is ludicrous, supply and demand is much more "fair".
        • Jobu71x, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0We are paying a fair price. Unfair even, if you take into account the price paid in other countries (outside of the U.S.) around the world.
    • cerealspiller, on 02/02/2008, -6/+4LOL. Spot on.
    • sleepycoder, on 02/02/2008, -3/+5It *is* ridiculous when the country's government and economy are going bankrupt to finance a war that benefits Exxon. They need to be footing more of the bill for the war that their cronies Bush & Cheney started.
    • nicejai, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Usually, if you run a business a the cost of your supply increases (in this case, USD per barrel) you would have the following options.

      Profit less, by not increasing what you charge your customers.
      Profit the same, by charging your customers more by exactly how much you were charged more.
      Profit more, by charging your customers more than the increased cost.

      In the case of a gas company, their cost of supply is USD/barrel. You'd think that if the price of the barrel went up, their profit levels would remain roughly the same, or go up a little by doing some cost-cutting. However, if their profit goes up a significant amount (in this case, ~15%) *because* the cost of their supply went up... then that means they're charging customers more than the additional cost.

      Put simply, they charge us more because we're expecting gasoline prices to go up when we hear on the new that crude went up. So, the oil companies exploit this expectation and simply charging us more, because we don't know exactly how much the added cost of a barrel of crude is supposed to add per gallon by the time it reaches our pumps.

      When costs go up and companies end up making significantly more profit, it means they're screwing us.
      • DotSwag, on 02/02/2008, -1/+0You're overlooking demand. If they employ the strategy of "charging your customers more by exactly how much you were charged more," then their profit *margin* will stay the same as it was last year, but their total profits for the year will still rise if they sell more gallons than last year.
        • Azerael, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1There's always demand for oil. In today's world, it's almost like putting a price on air.
      • Jobu71x, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0Sell 15% more gas, make 15% more profit. Funny how that scenario was left out.
    • atticus8, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Further, the conclusion I draw is not biased in any way, because how could I be biased? I'm just your friendly neighborhood "little guy". Watch me dance because I'm not a corporation! I'm not interested in demand elasticity, skyrocketing global infrastructure needs, or supply costs, I'm interested in Harry Potter and Fall Out Boy. I am sympathetic because I'm not an institution - I'm just like you, dear reader.
      Now where is my ***** money Exxon earned?!?!?!
    • Bilabrin, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2POWER TO THE PROLITARIATE!!!
  • Dan137exe, on 02/02/2008, -21/+28God forbid ExxonMobil provides a service all Americans need and then turn a profit off it. If you have a problem with that invest in alternative energy sources and pressure others (including your government) to stay ahead of the curve.
    • myranttoyou, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Sure, throw away money in a government supported monopoly? Yah, that's a great argument.
    • whatthehell9, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2government intervention/subsidies = bad.
    • cyberprunes, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3so you're defending the Oil companies? The rapists of the earth? The war profiteers? The very fact that we are so dependent on OIL gives Exxon and others the ability to rape us and gain huge amounts of money,power and influence. They do whatever they want because it is the corporate elite who own this country and ultimately decide our governmental policies, especially in the matter of unjust mid-east wars over oil. If you think we're in Iraq to bring freedom guess again. Its for control of resources and strategic positioning. If America was concerned about bringing freedom to the middle east we'd have invaded saudi arabia a while ago. They are incredibly oppressive and yet they are a strong ally to the U.S. Why? OIL my friend OIL.
  • jer2eydevil88, on 02/02/2008, -12/+6They shatter profits every quarter.... and gas prices keep going up... Thats okay though because they have to make their money now. When Obama takes office they will be looking at massive price cuts or large anti trust suits... Ahhh justice.
    • ChaosMotor, on 02/02/2008, -4/+3Keep dreamin. He has Zbignew Brezinsky as an adviser. His wife is a director of the CFR. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing - just like Bush was - isn't it nice we get to pick from a well-groomed, pre-approved line-up for our next puppet-in-chief?
    • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2uhh many democrats are proposing a gas tax making prices higher. This will sound cliche but liberals tend to favor gas taxes, just look at Europe. Also, I don't know how you think they can cut prices since Exxon makes up like 2.5% of the world oil market.
  • jasqwerty, on 02/02/2008, -22/+27And yet, Exxon only makes 5.25 cents of profit on every gallon you buy. That's it, as just some info to all you people complaining. Whether they profited off you or not would literally almost have no change in gasoline pricing.

    So, just goes to show, while a lot of people bitch and moan, Exxon manages to sell more and more gasoline year after year. The hypocrisy and crying is always delicious.
    • Carthagefield, on 02/02/2008, -6/+5Perhaps on demostic fuel sales, but you forget that Exxon is a global conglomerate. Taken as a world average of profit per gallon the figure is much higher.

      Look I don't have a problem with a company making high profits. It just irks me that some of these profits aren't distributed down the chain to the workers, not just to the directors and shareholders. Is that so unfair?
      • jasqwerty, on 02/02/2008, -3/+7>>Taken as a world average of profit per gallon the figure is much higher.

        Why hello person talking out of their ass. If gasoline costs much more where you live, blame it on your governments over taxation. It's been shown numerous times that the base price is rather constant worldwide. Any differences are due to direct over taxation or subsidizing.
        • Carthagefield, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2I am well aware that taxes account for a very large part of prices at the pump, and (beside the point) rightly so. As you astutely point out, we must omit the regional tax rate to find a fair comparison of the cost of fuel between different countries. Since you claim to know the "base price" of fuel in each country, perhaps you would like to provide us with some figures and citations?
          • jcounterman, on 02/02/2008, -3/+6He stated a fact, you said "Nuh uh! Tha'ts not right" and didn't include relevent facts or figures. The burdon of proof is on you.
          • Carthagefield, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2//He stated a fact//

            No, he established a premis without proving it. Not a fact.

            //you said "Nuh uh! Tha'ts not right"//

            Incorrect. I didn't dispute the accuracy of his initial premis. I instead questioned the validity of that premis by suggesting that the profit per gallon should be based on the global average, rather than limited to the US only.

            //The burdon [sic] of proof is on you.//

            I think you are confused. jasqwerty stated a premis. I correctly asserted that this was a false premis (no facts and figures required, only logic). jasqwerty countered by suggesting that the "base price" of fuel is near enough the same in every country. in other words, he is arguing that dispite his premis being invalid, my (valid) premis would result in the same conclusion i.e. that Exxon makes 5.25 cents/gallon in profit. The burden now falls to jasqwerty to prove this, which he has neglected to do.
          • jasqwerty, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1>>Incorrect. I didn't dispute the accuracy of his initial premise

            Dumbass, here's what you said

            >>Taken as a world average of profit per gallon the figure is much higher.

            Proof? Why of course none.
          • Carthagefield, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2@jasqwerty
            Firstly, I must question why you feel the need to throw insults around. This proves a) you lack class; b) you are very fond of the word ass (I'll let others judge the significance of this).

            // >>Incorrect. I didn't dispute the accuracy of his initial premise //

            This is true. By initial premise, I am referring to your claim that "Exxon only makes 5.25 cents of profit on every gallon". Once again, I did not dispute the accuracy of this claim, when applied (as you meant it) to the US market only. I instead suggested that a global average is more relevant. Rather, I disputed the VALIDITY of the premise, not the ACCURACY of the statement within that premise.

            //Proof? Why of course none."//

            You have made two assertions thus far:

            //Exxon only makes 5.25 cents of profit on every gallon you buy.//
            //It's been shown numerous times that the base price is rather constant worldwide.

            You have failed to provide any citations to back these statements up. Until you reveal your sources, you are not in a position to accuse me of a lack of clarity.
        • jasqwerty, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1>>perhaps you would like to provide us with some figures and citations?

          Just as soon as you provide some proof for your claims you little ***** bitch.
      • wadein, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5@Carthagefield. I guess you don't live near an Exxon Refinery or know many people who work for Exxon. In my area where Exxon has a refinery, the Exxon retirement account is very hard to beat. Many of the hands there retire millionaires. Of course that hand has to be smart in how he contributes. In this area, the Exxon retirement is the reason many people, even with college degrees, go to work in the field. I would say they do very good in distributing their profits to their workers.
        • Jobu71x, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0Wadein, thank you for a comment that just invalidated the majority of the posts here.
    • Vodd9, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6[citation needed]
    • AxisDenied, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7Wow, only 5.25 cents? What about the efforts to save money in converting crude to gasoline? The point is, they shouldn't be making record profits in an industry that is supposedly hurting. The fact is, the gas companies have a monopolist agreement among themselves. Adjust for inflation and you have a record number of people hurting in an "energy crisis", while 4 of the most profitable companies in the world are the people who supply the energy.

      What's crazy is, this is a necessity. Peak Oil is real, and we need real alternatives. This is the only thing that will cause those alternatives to come around so that we're not completely with our butts in the wind when the ***** hits the fan.

      (You know you like my use of cliches... haha)
      • jasqwerty, on 02/02/2008, -3/+1>>The point is, they shouldn't be making record profits in an industry that is supposedly hurting.

        This sentence is nonsensical. In fact, most of what you said is indecipherable.
    • thoma4tr, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6what is your source for this breakdown in price.
  • Richandler, on 02/02/2008, -3/+12This is the inflation tax taking away your hard earned money. Inflation is the reason gas is high and why these oil companies are posting record profits. Run away inflation destroys the middle class. Look at any 3rd world nation where too much money was thrown into an economy. Their middle class disappears and there is just elite class and low class. As long as people keep putting up with the same politicians who don't address monetary policy we too will end up the same way. Inflation is evil, it is a byproduct we are forced to pay when the government prints and borrows for stuff it cannot afford.

    We have to pay for gas! It's the only way our economy works and you can deduct from there that the oil companies would be the only ones to profit in the down fall of the economy.
    • brokenspatula, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2digg users don't want the truth, don't give it to them!
    • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2unfotunately though, the inflation tax is impossible to get rid of. Even when we had the gold standard, there were still significant periods of inflation either due to war or to large increases in the amount of gold mined such as in the 1890s and 1900s.
    • david76, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4Hate to break it to you, but the price of oil doesn't follow inflation. The price of a barrel was as low as $10 back in 1998. It has since climbed to $100, the majority of that climb in the last year. That's a 25% compound annual growth. Inflation over the same period was less than 4% per year.

      Nice theory, but it doesn't hold water.
  • tinko, on 02/02/2008, -6/+57In other related news:

    99% of us are broke.
    • agvance, on 02/02/2008, -8/+299% of people are broke because shopping is the main hobby in the Western world these days, also eating out. If people would stopping spending all of their money buying expensive clothing, cars and junk in addition to eating out people would have a lot more money in their pocket. I don't think $3 gas prices is really breaking anybody I think it is their lifestyle.
      • valkyries, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2expensive cloths? i paid 50$ for a pair of pants and they have lasted me 4 years and they keep going.
        • bagelmaster, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I paid $10 and they've lasted me 4 years... funny how that works
      • purzzzell, on 02/03/2008, -2/+1I saw you were getting buried and dugg ya - and I'm with you.
        People just don't like "the bearer of bad news" - *****, my aunt and her fourteen year old daughter are "BROKE" but go to starbucks, mcdonanlds, or some similar ***** pretty much once EVERY DAY.

        There are people who are GENUINELY broke - most of the people bitching about it - need to budget more effectively.

        And all thse "broke" people had $20 when they thought they could get smash bros. brawl for that price - the truly broke would be unable to afford it, even that cheap (as well as would have sold items of value such as the WII which you need to play it).
    • pirloui, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6In other news, Bush admin sold the US for Oil & co.
    • jonnyboy1544, on 02/02/2008, -7/+1You obviously have enough money for a computer and internet service *****. Budget your money better.
      • SaperKain, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3I love how republicans wants take us back to dark ages. "YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNETS YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL YOURSELF POOR!!!" Yeah scream at me some more.
  • coffee200am, on 02/02/2008, -13/+12Breaking news...Exxon sells gas in the US for 3 to 4 dollars a gallon.....Europeans pay way more for their gas.
    • kodak543, on 02/02/2008, -3/+10thats more because of the taxes in Europe than anything else. I don't think the market price of gasoline varies that much from country to country.
      • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3very few countries have a market price for gasoline as there are so many taxes and subsidies on the way from the ground to the retail gasoline stations that it is completely distorted
    • ridium, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7Europeans don't have to drive as much because their public transportation system is decades ahead of the US.
  • coffee200am, on 02/02/2008, -5/+15I wonder how many on this thread pay for bottled water when it’s free from the tap?
    Why pay the dealer for a bag when you can grow your own?
    What about your ISP? You pay them to look at the news, videos and chat…Google shares $515.
    What about the insane prices for Mountain Dew, Red Bull, Shocker and all the rest? $2 a can?
    Your rent….Shouldn’t that be free or at least government regulated?
    Oil isn’t just for Gasoline. Those plastics manufacturers are bastards for holding us hostage.
    • ChaosMotor, on 02/02/2008, -9/+3"Your rent….Shouldn’t that be free or at least government regulated?"
      It amazes me that no one even thinks about this. Why do I have to pay for the right to ***** sleep inside, and have walls around my ***** so no one walks off with it? And not, like, once, or by like, taking care of the place and maintaining it, but every ***** month, I have to pay for the right to not live outside. What. The. *****. And nobody ever thinks about it, nobody cares. We are slaves, people, we are slaves. We don't work for ourselves, to advance our own position, we work to enrichen others, our "boss", our massah.
      • tdrizzle, on 02/02/2008, -2/+11Yeah *****! Why doesn't the government feed me as well? Why should I have to work for food. Don't I have a RIGHT to eat? How could the government just let me starve.
        • ChaosMotor, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never asked the government to feed or house me. I only ask that I have the right to feed and house MYSELF without interference.
      • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7you actually don't have to pay a dime...it's called a homeless shelter. When you pay rent, you are paying someone else the right to sleep inside their building that they built/own.
        • ChaosMotor, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Why does anyone have the right to own a building they aren't occupying? I'll be happy to maintain the property on my own.
          • atticus8, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1Maybe, just maybe, ChaosMotor, after you have left your house to go to the drum circle or wherever it is modern hippies go, someone will enter your house and take your computer back to his house permanently so you can learn, at the very least, why someone might have a right to own a computer they aren't at the moment occupying.
            Why don't you hippies just follow your so-called "ideals" and just build your own house? Oh yes - because it would COLLAPSE. You should start a new, mini-society where everyone just pays what they feel like, dude. It's been tried before and it ALWAYS works out great.
          • ChaosMotor, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2@atticus,

            Wow, you really don't want to consider that you can have property rights without being extortionary or exploitative, do you? Any sort of forced misinterpretation so as to not bother with real understanding, huh?

            By the way, I have experience in construction and remodeling, if I had access to resources I could and would build a house for myself that wouldn't collapse. I love how you assume anyone who disagrees with you is an unskilled hippy idiot.
      • Nekiruhs, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1I believe you forgot your /sarcasm tag. Diggers get confused easily, forgive them.
        • atticus8, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1He's not being sarcastic.... he's just an idiot. Check under tdrizzle's comment:
          "I never asked the government to feed or house me. I only ask that I have the right to feed and house MYSELF without interference." - ChaosMotor
          Your guess is as good as mine as to what the hell he's talking about. I think he believes that the government is somehow interfering with his "right" to housing because private house builders or house owners charge him money to give him the privilege of being able to stay in the house he doesn't own and that he didn't contribute jack ***** to construct.
          • ChaosMotor, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I'm talking about denying other people access to necessary resources that you may exploit them for your own benefit and control those who need them. I'm talking about freakin tyranny here, and indentured servitude. I'm talking about your goddamned freedom! I don't know many landlords that built the houses they rent, nor have any use for them other than to derive their income from doing nothing but owning something someone else needs access to to survive.
    • coffee200am, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7We should start a revolution to make everything free. Then we'll show those corporate SOB's who's boss! (Just don't take my stuff and redistribute it..ok?)
    • BigBallistix, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Good to see someone else who understands how plastics are made.
      • valkyries, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1plastics, carpet, makeup, medicine, (most) hydrogen, natural gas, synthetic rubber(tires), tons of ***** are made from Oil or getting to the Oil.
    • kbeast, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3you need to buy a home, and you'll know that water from the tap isn't free.
    • fugazied, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Absolutely true, we need technology to develop plastics without oil....
  • coffee200am, on 02/02/2008, -8/+21Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
    Norway Oslo $6.27
    Italy Milan $5.96
    Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
    Belgium Brussels $5.91
    Sweden Stockholm $5.80
    United Kingdom London $5.79
    Germany Frankfurt $5.57
    France Paris $5.54
    Portugal Lisbon $5.35
    Hungary Budapest $4.94
    Luxembourg $4.82
    Croatia Zagreb $4.81
    Ireland Dublin $4.78
    Switzerland Geneva $4.74
    Spain Madrid $4.55
    Japan Tokyo $4.24
    Czech Republic Prague $4.19
    Romania Bucharest $4.09
    Andorra $4.08
    Estonia Tallinn $3.62
    Bulgaria Sofia $3.52
    Brazil Brasilia $3.12
    Cuba Havana $3.03
    Taiwan Taipei $2.84
    Lebanon Beirut $2.63
    South Africa Johannesburg $2.62
    Nicaragua Managua $2.61
    Panama Panama City $2.19
    Russia Moscow $2.10
    Puerto Rico San Juan $1.74
    Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91
    Kuwait Kuwait City $0.78
    Egypt Cairo $0.65
    Nigeria Lagos $0.38
    Venezuela Caracas $0.12
    • siszam, on 02/02/2008, -8/+6Notice how affordable gas is when countries nationalize it and use it to benefit the people.
      • coffee200am, on 02/02/2008, -0/+7Maybe because they produce it?
      • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -0/+10so Europe hates its people, and only the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America care about them? You realize gas subsidies in developing countries are a subsidy for the rich? The rich are the only ones who can afford or often even allowed to drive a car in those countries.
        • coffee200am, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1How did they get to be "rich" and what s the definition of rich?
          • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2often government/military connection and the definition of rich in those countries is relative and would be considered middle class in the U.S.
      • skyshock1, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4It has NOTHING to do with nationalizing it. The reason it's cheap is because those are countries that drill for most of it themselves rather than import it. Which could be done here in our own Anwar region. But Liberals will have none of that.
        • 3Den, on 02/02/2008, -4/+1It has everything to do with nationalizing it. Gas isn't cheap in Venezuela because they have oil.. it's cheap because the government subsidizes gas... profits from oil exports are used to make local gas cheap. It's not because gas is fundamentally cheaper because they have oil.

          It is subsidized as a political move to keep things going - if gas were sold by the corporation at cost, the economy would likely collapse.

      • thechitowncubs, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Cuba Havana $3.03
    • cyberdork, on 02/02/2008, -2/+17Those numbers are completely misleading!
      Take Germany for example. One gallon of gasoline costs here €1.355/liter. That's $7.63/gallon
      Now those $7.63 include a "mineral oil tax" of $3.69 and VAT taxes of $1.22.
      So if you subtract those taxes you come to a 'real' price of: $2.72/gallon. That's about the same price you pay in the US.
      • slicerace, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Thank god people have some sense about this - I hate the stupid argument that gas is so expensive in country "x" (typically in Europe is where they always get their example). The reason it's twice as much there as it is here (in the United States) is because it's so heavily taxed! I think that money goes to paying for healthcare, but don't quote me on that (lulz).
        • bagelmaster, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I'd almost be willing to pay 5-6 dollars a gallon if I didn't have to pay a health insurance bill every month
    • djAnakin, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5Norway is one of the richest countries in the world.. and certainly has enough oil.. yet they have one o fthe highest gas prices. But, this is 100% due to taxes. That is how they pay for new roads and tunnels and bridges. The crown wasn't every town connected to roads by like 2020. No more ferry's and water taxis.
      • 3Den, on 02/02/2008, -2/+0Not just taxes - Norway is not dependent on foreign oil at all - they produce all their own energy needs.

    • robthom, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Aren't most of the European countries smaller than an average Midwest state? It might not take more than a few gallons to traverse the whole country.
  • jmpeagle, on 02/02/2008, -4/+28so they had a profit margin of around 10%? That's less than McDonald's profit margin. Maybe the problem is not Exxon but consumers. Prices are going through the roof and we are still demanding more gasoline this year than the previous year. Rising prices are the result of increasing demand and flattening supply growth. It's going to take some much more serious price shock before consumers begin altering their behavior.
    • cyberdork, on 02/02/2008, -0/+23Hey, you are completely right. I just checked some numbers.
      Profit Margin of various companies:
      Exxon-Mobile: 11.59%
      Apple: 15.37%
      Microsoft: 29.29%
      GE: 13.09%
      Google: 26.90%
      Sony: 2.66%
      ATT: 10.05%
    • jeffiek, on 02/02/2008, -1/+11Hey, c'mon, they're OIL companies. They're evil.

      Don't let the facts get in the way.
    • greevar, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Maybe people should stop buying SUVs and drive a more energy friendly car? I swear, SUVs have replaced minivans as the preferred family vehicle! Not that minivans don't suck gas, SUVs just suck more. A lot more. Honda is publicly testing its FCX hydrogen fuel cell car this year in CA. I hope like hell that all of the auto manufacturers catch on to this. The problem is, that Exxon and their ilk have been using their unfair buying power to supress this techonology for years. Only now, that things are getting really tight are they finally getting this alternative out to the public.
      • skyshock1, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1"Maybe people should stop buying SUVs and drive a more energy friendly car? "

        Drop in the pan. The real problem is industry consumption, not SUV usage. Dude, just think of how SUV consumption pales in comparison to the shipping industry (trucking, locomotive, airplanes, cargo ships, etc...)
  • tdrizzle, on 02/02/2008, -9/+15It is still a free market, for now at least, don't see what the problem is.
    • Daedalus17, on 02/02/2008, -1/+9Since when are massive subsidies considered "free market"?
    • carpespasm, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2that they lobby the government in their own interests rather than allowing unrest in the middle east to take it's natural course where people would see the unreliability (both long and short term) in that energy supply and divert it into more reliable sources (pretty much anything else.)
    • slicerace, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1It may be free, but that doesn't imply there's perfect competition.
  • coffee200am, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2Those bastards!!!

    * Saudi Aramco remains No. 1, but Iran's NIOC displaces Exxon Mobil to reach No. 2

    * ConocoPhillips makes top ten debut; Mexico's Pemex drops out of the top ten

    NEW YORK -- Petroleum Intelligence Weekly this week published its annual ranking of the world's 50 largest oil companies, a long established benchmark survey recognized industry-wide as the leading source of comparative performance assessments on all the world's oil companies. While Saudi Aramco maintained its hold on the top spot, the performance of other top national oil company mainstays was mixed as the windfall from high oil prices helped produce conflicting results.
    The Rankings are based on six operational criteria that allow the comparison of private sector and state-owned oil companies. This year's rankings are based on operational data for 2006, the most recent data available for such a wide group of firms.

    Even though state-controlled firms made up the majority of the 23 companies advancing in this year's Top 50, they did not dominate. Pemex, Venezuela's PDV and Kuwait's KPC continue to decline as they -- like many others in the Top 50 -- fail to effectively deploy their steadily increasing revenues in pursuit of operational growth. IOCs delivered similarly mixed results, but still showed remarkable resilience in light of the ongoing transformation in NOC-IOC relations in favor of NOCs.

    Here are some key findings from the PIW Top 50:

    * Saudi Aramco maintains its hold on the top spot, the result of significant ongoing investment in both upstream and downstream oil and gas operations.

    * For the first time in years, IOCs outnumber NOCs in the top ten, helped by the ascent of ConocoPhillips and its acquisition of Burlington Resources, which moved it ahead of Chevron and Total.

    * Novatek of Russia makes debut at 49 based on rapid increases in both oil and gas reserves and output, while Japanese Inpex benefited from its integration with Teikoku Oil.

    The Top 50 is the precursor to the more comprehensive Energy Intelligence Top 100: Ranking The World's Oil Companies, to be published in December 2007.

    To view the PIW Top 50 rankings, please visit our website at
  • coffee200am, on 02/02/2008, -2/+17More rich bastards!
    Top Fortune 500

    1. Wal Mart- United States (retail)
    2. ExxonMobil Corporation - United States (oil/retail)
    3. Royal Dutch Shell - Netherlands (oil)
    4. British Petroleoum - United Kingdom (oil)
    5. General Motors - United States (automobiles)
    6. Toyota Motor - Japan (automobiles)
    7. Chevron - United States (oil)
    8. DaimlerChrysler - Germany (automobiles)
    9. ConocoPhillips - United States (oil)
    10. Total - France (oil)
    • Forcough, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2You forgot Shell's $27.6bn profits

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=D ...
    • 666dorado, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2wow. 9 out of 10 are oil/auto. can you say 'collusion'?
    • 3Den, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1Wal Mart is huge.. but their margins are very, very small. If spread among their employees evenly, all of wal-mart's yearly profits could not give a $2/hour raise to everyone.
    • TomScrace, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0Royal Dutch Shell is actually a British/Dutch company. It is the result of a merger between the Royal Dutch Petroleum company, and the UK-based Shell Transport and Trading Company. Currently the company's headquarters are in the Netherlands, but it is incorporated - and holds its principal stock listing - in the UK.
    • jaydoj, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3thanks for the list of the top ten companies to buy stock in. 1% here I come!!!!!
  • crackah, on 02/02/2008, -21/+14***** me, has digg been invaded by hippies?

    So ***** what, dont like their product dont ***** use it.
    • pimpofpixels, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3We have no choice. See there's a thing called anti-trust where a company or a group of sympathetic companies conspire to control demand. Companies might buy up passenger rail systems for the sole purpose of dismantling them, buy electric vehicle alternatives to bury the technology. They might use this profit to hire thousands of lobbyists and influence in television stations in order to get their people into positions of power. Once in power they might, just might encourage the country to start a war which would cause uncertainty in the market allowing them to charge double for their product.

      When there's a drought the farm industry loses money. When there's a shortage of oil the oil industry makes record profits. Think about that.
      • LightSpeed4, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0actually you do have a choice from exxonmobil, chevron, shell, etc.
        • bagelmaster, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Too bad they all charge the exact same ***** price. Real nice choice there
  • fraglessone, on 02/02/2008, -5/+3The sad thing is, nobody really has control over this. Who here gets their gas directly from Exxon? That's what I thought..
    • selectodude, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1...are you serious?

      If you buy gasoline from Exxon, Mobil, Esso or like 20 other companies, you're buying from ExxonMobile.
  • jodokast, on 02/02/2008, -8/+3The sad thing is that while corporations continue to cheat the people, the people do nothing. Sure people will comment here about how evil they are, but thats as far as it goes.
    • jcounterman, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3For God's sake, they make the money because of their scale, not because they are raping and pillaging consumers. Their profit margin is less than Apple, Microsoft, and even McDonalds. Yes, they are big; you HAVE to be big to make the $5 billion investments in an offshore drilling rig or spend $300 million plus to drill an offshore well. The bigger you are, the more able you are to make the needed invstments to find and produce oil.

      Yes, they make ***** of money, but this is because they SPEND ***** of money and employ thousands of people in the US alone.
    • carpespasm, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1that's for the same reason that so many people conquered by the roman empire didn't revolt for so long. Life was better under the rulers than it might otherwise be if you fought them, and were ruined by them. It's the carrot and the stick. You can either eat the carrot in your cage or get hit with the stick when they find you sneaking out of the cage.
  • warlokaz2004, on 02/02/2008, -8/+9hey i'm not a 'marxist' -- but for Exxon to make record profits as the price of gas soars...well, it stinks of price gouging to me. The real tragedy is that out of all that 'profit', untold millions, billions even will go to lobbying, payoffs and outright bribes to keep america dependant on fossil fuels, vs getting a home grown, renewable energy solution.
    • Riemannian, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Actually, no it won't. Most of it will go the stockholders, who contractually have the right to those profits by their ownership of stock. Who needs the profit motive anyway?
    • jcounterman, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2It's not ***** price gouging if they aren't making rediculous profit margins!
    • MaskedSlacker, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2if it stinks of price gouging, I suggest you see a doctor, because you're hallucinating.
  • GoneSouth, on 02/02/2008, -4/+7WWRPD ?
    • whatthehell9, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1get rid of subsidies and government intervention and let the free market decide.
    • PATSCRU, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1He'd come in 5th place.
  • ZenPirate, on 02/02/2008, -1/+20 All signs point to: "WE USE TOO MUCH OIL!!!!"
    • 33PercentGod, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Survey Says......! *DING DING DING*
  • tgc1, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3Who here is surprised by this?
  • defektiv, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2so if they're brought up to the senate judiciary again, what will happen since ted stevens isn't there to refuse to swear them in? ah right, they'll never see the committee again.

    i swear, we should all stop paying federal income tax, pool our money together and create a few oil refineries. start cranking out some regulated oil to compete with these assholes gouging us at the pump every moment they can. (to clarify, pump owners get gouged as well)

    it wouldn't take but a couple years to drive them out of business and think of the RETURNS on our tax dollars for a change.. but in the end, i still think giving us back our personal income tax (federal) is the way to go.
  • tetsuwan, on 02/02/2008, -2/+4Companies and people who make this kind of money are interested in a fair and disinterested view of carbon emissions, right?
  • carterx, on 02/02/2008, -6/+4That is messed though.... they post record profits and constantly put prices up because they can't afford to have it lower ???? Love todays society. This is where the government needs to step in and squash the monopoly on gas and it's prices.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Screw you, if you invested your money in something and the government came and took it away because you made 10% interest off it I'm sure you wouldn't be feeling like justice had been served.
      • rezist, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I hope you like the U.A.E. screwing you!
    • MaskedSlacker, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2You're an idiot. Oil companies don't set the price of oil (other than through their influence on the supply via production decisions) Futures traders set the price.
  • grexeo, on 02/02/2008, -3/+4Except that the US dollar is now worth less than half it was when the last record was made, so this isn't really a record at all.
  • wing05, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3For all you armchair experts who think something should be done about competition, try this http://www.greasecar.com

    Sure it may screw it up for the small niche of people using it, but it is indeed competition.
    • Sean42, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Why is this link getting dugg down?. The oil lobby trolls are in full force today.
    • maddla, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Any diesel engine can be run on vegetable grease. I use it in my VW, except it increases the maintenance 10-fold. The rear of my car is black most days due to the (environmentally friendly) waste coming out of the tail pipe. But thanks for sharing that link
    • BradMW, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Thanks for posting the lamest thing I have ever seen in my life.
  • UtahApocalyse, on 02/02/2008, -4/+3They have to have prices because they have reduced production, they have reduced production because the lack of new refineries, that can't afford..... oh wait.

    The oil companies will not make any new refineries, or invest in new energy technology because they want the fat wallets. I swear if congress gives them any new subsides I will be fighting back.
    • iloveliberals, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2Oil companies won't invest billions in new refineries because the government is heavily subsidizing corn-based ethanol. This is yet another problem created by a government "solution."
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Not to mention congress and the states have made it prohibitively difficult to get one built.
    • MaskedSlacker, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1You are also an idiot. They haven't built new refineries because no community in the US will allow them to build them. Its hard to build something as environmentally nasty as a refinery without local permission.
  • ridium, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3"ExxonMobil representatives also stressed the cyclical nature of the business and noted that growing global demand for energy will require companies to heavily invest in future growth. The company said it estimates that global demand will grow by 30 percent by 2030."

    So, ExxonMobil representatives, how much off that profit will you invest in R&D for *renewable energy*? You bill yourself as an "energy company" after all. Or, will you continue to milk fossil fuels for all they're worth which will drive up energy prices, increase the price of food, erode consumer spending power, hurt global business, and cause war?
    • Lonyo, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Why should they be in charge of the world?
      You can't blame a company for doing what the market lets it.
      Why don't you complain that your government isn't doing enough? Why don't you complain to the US government for encouraging farmers to grow ethanol crops which ***** up the world food market and has contributed to high inflation and food prices?
      If you don't like the way things are heading, take the power away from oil companies by getting people to "go green", rather than telling the energy companies that they should go green. Companies will go where the money is, and if the money is in oil, that's where they will stay, until they can feasibly expand into other areas.
      • slicerace, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1It's sad that you don't have more diggs.
    • MaskedSlacker, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1You are also an idiot. Price of food has risen more from ethanol subsidies than from oil price rises. In fact, 50% of 2007's global grain shortfall was due to american ethanol subsidies. Nevermind that ethanol production and burning, like hybdrid electric cars, results in a NET increase in pollution compared to gasoline vehicles.
  • wing05, on 02/02/2008, -5/+1Lost the first time I posted it....

    For all of you complaining about competition and not being able to do anything about it. http://www.greasecar.com

    It'll screw it up for the niche who's doing it currently but it'll be sure to turn a few heads.
  • Maddoktor2, on 02/02/2008, -8/+3I think it's time to boycott EXXON.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I would but I'm not a sheep.
    • BradMW, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Oh, because that will lead to lower prices for you.
    • DaveInCA, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0Great I have a nice used bike I can sell you or a good pair of walking shoes.
  • Sean42, on 02/02/2008, -4/+6Let me get this straight......

    Exxon makes more money than God but is still fighting the settlement awarded to the fishermen in the exxon valdez spill that happened in 1989.......19 ***** YEARS AGO.
    • MaskedSlacker, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Oh, the catholic church still has more money than Exxon, don't worry.
  • zeiben, on 02/02/2008, -4/+2'Grats guys! You earned it! mwah! cheers! Hooray Oil!
  • yellowcakewalk, on 02/02/2008, -4/+5Get rid of your car and get a bike. Take the bus and/or subway. Lowering demand for petroleum lowers the demand for petroleum wars.
    • slapded, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3we all dont live in a city you *****
    • Christbait, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1It's way too late for that, it's either we all sink deeper in our own mess or oil companies have to make a compromise, and I can't help think that they won't do that. So downwards it is, then....
    • bagelmaster, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Like slapded said we don't all live in cities. It would be fun for me to ride my bike 15 miles to work (one way) everyday.
  • Riemannian, on 02/02/2008, -5/+11Do you guys know that oil companies face one of the highest corporate tax rates possible? Exxon Mobile, for example, pays an effective tax rate of 41% on its taxable income. Do you also realize how competitive the energy and gas industries are? How many of you choose your gas on Exxon's brand, rather than Chevron or Shell? How many of you guys were around to bitch in 2001 when oil fell to $20 dollars a barrel and many oil companies had to scale back their projects because of it?
    • zeiben, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4You're right. I feel bad for them now. I was gonna write a check to Oxfam, but perhaps I can send it to Exxon instead.
      BTW - I was around in '01. I didn't give a ***** about their projects then, and I don't give a ***** now. There's only one project I want these sons of bitches investing in - getting us off oil.
  • Ydnar723, on 02/02/2008, -9/+3Wow Exxon made a profit? No way! With gas and oil so high of course they can make a profit and testify in front of congress without having any action taken on big oil companies. They should have a new grade of Gasoline called "Thank you"...On your reciept it will read "Thanks for helping us screw people over so we can hoard in another record profit....including the guy sitting in line behind you. Move along and please come again!"
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Okay ignore tax gouging guy.
    • LightSpeed4, on 02/02/2008, -2/+0Instead of celebrating the success of capitalism, the loony liberal Marxist on digg called ydnar whines, rofl
      • extreme01, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Look mom I found another brainwashed zombie. It says his name is lightspeed.
  • crewpilot, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Exchange the word Exxon for Apple in this headline and I bet the comments here would be a lot different. Face it, you are angry because a company is making a profit off of you, yet you live (quite luxuriously and with unprecedented access to wealth & freedom) in a country who has been founded on on a free market. Yet, when a company is able to capitalize on that free market, you moan and complain about the need for regulation. Does that make any sense?
  • ncsumetalhead, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1is anyone really surprised?
    everybody knows they're getting ***** everytime they fill up
  • chili555, on 02/02/2008, -3/+4What percentage of these profits come from the sale of gasoline? What percent come from the USA? How does Exxon-Mobil's operating margin compare to Apple? Microsoft? McDonalds?

    After you've done your homework, please come back and make an informed comment.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 127 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.