I went to a Mardis Gras ball last Friday. For 50 years, this guy who is a very wealthy banker always gave a speech at this particular ball. This year, he was too drunk and too fat to get up on the stage and give the speech. Course he is 84.

Is this what you are talking about?

:D That was exactly the guy I had in mind. Dude still owes me $100.

I dunno. An old man I used to hang out with -- died in '83 at 91 years old -- grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska. His dad was a banker and they had the first auto in their county. It was a Buick, I forget when, 1910 give or take a few, I think.

He told me stories about the way autos transformed the lonely prairie life. I'm not going to be such an ass as to claim that I would have known better if I'd been around back then, about how and what way to embrace technology.

My feeling is that it's easy to get carried away with flash and excitement and move away from practicality. We've got a whole bunch of stuff. Some of my happiest days have been at hippie gatherings up in the hills (Rainbow gatherings and the like) and hanging with friends in their primitive hogans and houses up near Canada in eastern WA.

Most of us have been so gradually saturated with autos and high tech that we have no idea what other modes are out there. A few weeks in a village of 10,000 people with no cars or electricity is a revelation (Rainbow gathering). The notion of wealth and what is real wealth or illusory wealth is an interesting one, for my hippie ass anyway.

Carl, Ginsberg would be proud to have you at his house for dinner. Maybe even Dylan Thomas.

Why thank you ma'am. Do you mean Alan Ginsberg? Dylan Thomas would be cool, but A. Ginsberg has a checkered past IMO.

OK. So it finally ends? I was going to chime in at 5 pages, then it kept rolling, I was going to chime in at 10 pages. Now here we sit stalled at 12 pages and only about 10% of the people caught my vibe.

This thread was taken so far off course it wasn't even funny.

It is at 12 only because you don't view it as 40 posts per page.

Here's some interesting data on the amount of taxes Exxon pays.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/02/putting-exxons-tax-bill-in-perspective.html

I want to chime in on this as well. I read through most of the posts and I did not see this addressed.

Part of the problem I have with the profits of the oil companies is that the ‘perception’ is that they seem to be getting a bit of free ride at the expense of the people. We are beholden to oil and the ME for said oil. We send our troops in to defend the land under which the oil comes from. They are getting tax breaks while we are paying more than we are used to. I guess my question is what sacrifices are they making? Were it not for the oil in the ME I find it difficult to believe that the US much less anyone else would give a rats a$$ about what went on in the ME. I guess it just seems a bit wrong when private companies are making huge amounts of profit when US soldiers are loosing their lives and the rest of the economy seems to be swirling the bowl waiting for the flush. Shouldn’t some of the cost for the ME be covered by the oil companies?

Secondly, I have the perception from various articles I have read and stories I have heard that the oil companies are doing all they can to inhibit the promotion of alternate fuels. It makes sense in that they are trying to prevent their own obsolescence but they seem to be buying their way into our government and that is not right either. I find it difficult to believe that given all the technological advances that have been made over the past 25-or 50 years that we are still using 100+ year old internal combustion engine. That just does not compute.

Third. There was mention earlier in the thread about profit on investment. I do not pretend to know what a good/bad profit is as I am not a business owner but going on what other mentioned I have this to offer.

If Exxon is only making 10%-11% (I think that’s what someone posted) and other business owners here said that if they did not make 30% or 40% they would go broke something does not add up. I do not know if this is a matter of size. (the bigger you are the less you need to make) but 10% seems pretty paltry to me. I do not know if someone is not being honest with the numbers (on the Exxon side) but I would not be surprised if a multi-billion dollar company has some really good CPA to hide and bury as much as they can to avoid looking worse than they all ready do. It just does not add up in my simple mind.

How so? They are already paying taxes. But for the sake of argument, what about the rest of the companies? They may not buy oil but they are the downstream part of it. For example, what about the people that make plastics? What about the asphalt companies? You see, everything is tainted by oil one way or the other. Lets put this as simply as we can. No oil = no commerce, period. Any industry we are in needs it. No oil means no fuel. We can't even grow a grain or wheat without it. Well we could but most of us might have only one grain to eat. So can you name any industry that won't be touched by oil? I can't. Maybe there are a few. To put it in a nutshell, oil affects all of our industries and every facet of our lives. Unless you want to live off the land tomorrow, that is.

Assuming that were true for a moment. Lets say we put you in a similar position. You sold widgets to the town and life was good. Would you be happy that the town looked to something to replace your product? Wouldn't you do the same? If so, how can you blame them? Look at the unions. Aren't they trying to get the companies to stay here and not move overseas, even though labor is higher here, for their own benefit?

Probably the size has something to do with it. If I have a hiccup and I am making 20% profit, I might go broke. They have a little more cushion.

Don't most of us who can do the same thing? We try to find everything we can to add as a deduction. I know the only reason I save stuff and give it to Goodwill and itemize it throughly is that I am using it as a deduction.

So how are they any different than most of us?

They bought into the government a long time ago. Robber baron long ago. US soldiers protect American interests. Those interests include (and one could argue comprise of) large American corporations. It's nothing new to have American troops defending corporate interests.

I don't know where the percentage came from for Exxon's profit as I didn't see a link, but undoubtedly government subisidies are not inlcuded. It would be interesting to see how much in taxes were paid minus subsidies received.


What happened to the entreprenuerial spirit? Plastics can (and are) being made with veg oil. Why can't businesses find new means of production without oil?

I agree that business is going to try and find away to survive. I do not believe that it is the governments job to assist in that venture at the expense of the people they are elected to represent. Yes I know the government is corrupt and we should/could vote the bastards out but that’s a separate thread).

As for taxes, my suspicion is that the government gives them far more ways to deduct and as an international business, they take advantage of the tax loop holes while still doing business here. Bottom line is I do not trust them to do the "right" thing. I seriously doubt the IRS is really going to audit a company with that much power over US government officials.

The folks making plastics and asphalt and the like are not hauling in profits like the oil companies are. As I said earlier, the fact that we are still using 100 yr old technology to propel our cars strikes me as very odd. It seems there is a concerted effort but the government, oil companies at the very least to keep us dependent. It is difficult to fight that kind of power.

As for defending corporate interests. If that is the case (which it seems to be) shouldn’t the corporation bear at least part of the burden to defend it’s interest?

The military serves the elected government. If you are a voter, you put the elected government in place. It is your responsibility. There is no "they" cabal controlling our lives. That is delusional paranoia--seeking an explanation of patterns where no pattern exists. Don't like what you believe is real? Think you have no impact? That powers beyond some curtain control our lives?

One word: Thorazine.

B

Did I say 'they' control our lives? No. 'They' are large corporations, and if you don't think they influence politics, then you should stop taking the thorazine. As for voting, votes don't install government. And in a representational government, the voter has no direct control of anything that happens. Add in the fact that we don't vote in the judicial branch, don't vote in any of the bureaucracies, and at any given time vote on no more than a fraction of Congress at any one time, you are crediting far too much power to my vote.

You described representative democracy adequately. I am very pleased with the results. The point of having elected leadership is to run the bureaucracy. I cannot imagine the chaotic system that would arise should citizens be empowered to vote in or vote out the bureaucracy.

Finally, the intent of federalism is to balance power against power -- state against federal. The usurpation of state power by the federal government has unbalanced that relationship resulting in a federal government that is too big and too powerful while due to it's vast size, too large to respond adequately to local problems it purports to have the power to address. Like the oft mentioned Katrina-Rita catastrophy amply demonstrated.

B

No doubt Adolf Hitler would have heartily agreed with you on January 30, 1933, the day he was named Chancellor of Germany.