Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills

US News & World Report ^ | February 11, 2009 | Robert Bryce

[thackney]

Last week, as a friend of mine and I were discussing the energy business, an acquaintance of ours came into the room. When told the topic of discussion, she immediately denounced Exxon Mobil. She'd just heard on the radio that the energy giant had had a record $45.2 billion profit in 2008. She was clearly hoping that we would join in her disgust.

I asked, "So are you suggesting that Exxon should not make money?" I went on, "Would you prefer that Exxon be like AIG, or Citigroup, or one of the big Wall Street outfits that's now asking for a government bailout?" That quieted her down. But I couldn't help myself. I asked, "Did you know that 52 percent of Exxon is owned by mutual funds, index funds, and pension funds?" No. Nor did she know that about 2 million individuals own Exxon stock or that company insiders hold less than 1 percent of the company.

The facts above are not meant to belittle my acquaintance. Rather, it's to illustrate an all-too-common problem in America: Voters have been conditioned to hate the energy business in general and Big Oil in particular. Americans love their gasoline, they love their cars, but they hate the oil companies....

According to the company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnote—if that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion. ...

[TChris]

(From one of your other responses:) Would you agree there should be separation between Corporation and State?

Well Travis and Chris, in between reading about UFOs, why don't you enlighten the class and explain what Mr. Salvemi was talking about in 1936:

He was talking about Fascist Italy.

You claimed "Corporatism=Collectivism=Communism". Would you kindly explain how you get from historical information on Fascist Italy to your conclusion?

(It might be illuminating if you look up the definitions of "Fascism" and "Communism" as a start. Then, figure out whether it was the governments controlling companies or the other way 'round.)

Here's a hint: Corporations don't typically ask for greater government regulation.

[Carry_Okie]

Here's a hint: Corporations don't typically ask for greater government regulation.

Correct. The major stockholders make donations to activist NGOs that do it for them, knowing it will kill their smaller competition. The NGO sues the appropriately complicit agency in Federill Court, and the bureaucrats have a job for life paid for by a non-discretionary "settlement." Then the politicians and bigwigs get to play ", Oh please, Brer Fox, don't throw me in that briar patch over there!!!" Meanwhile, the lesser players who know their time is short get to fight with the regulatory Tar Baby. That way, neither the corporate players nor the activists know what is going on.

It makes great theater.

[LomanBill]

>>Corporations don't typically ask
>>for greater government regulation

 

But how typically depends upon the character of the corporation.

 

How would you describe the character of the corporations presently sucking up billions of dollars in bailout money from the state?

 

Is the behavior they are exhibiting conducive to securing the inalienable rights of the individuals within the scope of their governance?

 

How do bailouts impact the relationship between corporation and state?

 

>>the definitions of "Fascism" and "Communism" as a start.

 

One feature Fascists and Communists have in common is the mandatory worship of, and subjugation of the individual to, the structure of collective governance.

 

[TChris]

But how typically depends upon the character of the corporation.

Could you provide evidence of any corporation asking for greater government regulation? (Negotiating on regulation already on its way from the govt. or already in place doesn't count...)

And even if I were to agree with what you wrote, your statement doesn't support the contention that "Corporatism=Collectivism" since only some corporations behave in that way.

If your general statement of equivalence is to be supported, you must show that a corporation inherently leads to or equals collectivism. A few bad actors in the corporate world don't condemn all the rest.

One feature Fascists and Communists have in common is the mandatory worship of, and subjugation of the individual to, the structure of collective governance.

What do you mean by "collective governance"?

Oh, and there is a very distinct, definitive difference between Fascism and Communism. Do you know what it is? Do you then understand how quotes about Italian Fascism do nothing to support your claim that "Corporatism=Collectivism=Communism"?

[Carry_Okie]

Could you provide evidence of any corporation asking for greater government regulation?

Major oil companies lobbied EPA to approve gasoline oxygenated with MTBE and simultaneously demanded (and got) indemnity for consequential environmental damages in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

[TChris]

> Could you provide evidence of any corporation asking for greater government regulation?

Major oil companies lobbied EPA to approve gasoline oxygenated with MTBE and simultaneously demanded (and got) indemnity for consequential environmental damages in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Unclear on the meaning of the word "evidence"?

[Carry_Okie]

Unclear on the meaning of the word "evidence"?

No, short of time for people who don't go read the prior post on which the evidence, including court documents, is already posted.

[TChris]

No, short of time for people who don't go read the prior post on which the evidence, including court documents, is already posted.

Hey, CO, you're the one who injected yourself into my discussion with LomanBill. Now you think I should review all your other posts too?

[Carry_Okie]

You don't "own" a discussion on a public forum.

Look, if you want me to go to all the trouble of posting links to court documents just for your edification, you had damned well better show the energy and interest in learning something beyond just blathering the party line. What I posted to you is reality: major stockholders use tax-exempt foundations to make "charitable" donations to NGOs that manipulate access to resources in order to manipulate the market. They effectively socialize control under complicit agencies because buying government influence over markets is cheaper than competing head to head. That was the real reason for limited government: it doesn't have the power to sell favors.

The founders of this country understood corporate mercantilism and feared it greatly. So should you.

[ArrogantBustard]

Voters have been conditioned to hate the energy business in general and Big Oil in particular.

Voters have been conditioned to chase whatever bogeyman or fear whatever bugaboo the miseducated dolts in the MSM (and their foul-minded masters) tell them is Public Enemy #1 (today).

Entirely too many folks ON THIS FORUM display the same pavlovian behaviour.

[TChris]

You don't "own" a discussion on a public forum.

I never claimed to. You injected yourself into a DISCUSSION or CONVERSATION between two people. I never said anything about the FORUM.

This is silly.

[LomanBill]

>>Could you provide evidence of any corporation asking for greater government regulation?

It goes hand in hand with asking for bailout money.

>>that "Corporatism=Collectivism" since only some corporations behave in that way.

A corporation IS a collective.  Is that by itself negative?  No, after all, even the founding fathers acted in a collective manner to gain America's independence. 

 

The negativity affixes itself via the character of the collective.   

 

Corporatism is a form of collectivism - the subtle semantic crux is in the "ism" part - the part indicating the collective structure, the hive, itself becomes an object of worship via which the individual is subjugated for the benefit of the collective.

 

>>you must show that a corporation inherently leads to or equals collectivism.

A corporate charter is just a tool.   And like any tool, it is the manner in which it is used that determines the character of the result.

 

Corporatism is the worship of the tool.   Think of it as a 1st Commandment issue: 

1.  Thou shall have no other gods before me... 

Remember that one?

 

 

Some of the folks that worked at Argent Mortgage priorly worked at Enron.  Are we seeing a pattern of (im)moral corporate, collective, behavior here?  Hmmm.

 

What was the object of worship there?  At Lehman Bros?  At any of the imploding financial organizations?

 

Was there no inner moral conflict, so long as the bottom line was black?  

 

Unfortunately, apparently not; but as we observe there are natural consequences when "Do what thou wilt (to keep the bottom line black)" becomes the corporate/collective, law.

 

>>What do you mean by "collective governance"?

The infrastructure by which governance is implemented. The Corporate Bureaucracy.

>>Italian Fascism do nothing to support your claim
>>that "Corporatism=Collectivism=Communism"?

Fascism is a behavior inherent in Human nature, not a movement in an Italian opera; it is a behavior that is observable throughout human history.

 

It can be observed throughout the Bible, generally given the name Baal.  Baal being a Hebrew word for Lord or Master. 

 

Essential, it is the worship of governance, or government, and its various trappings - economic and otherwise. 

 

But none of this is new.

 

Got Bread and Circuses?

 

[LomanBill]

>>Voters have been conditioned to hate the energy business
>>in general

 

Certainly they've been conditioned to hate the American energy business.

 

BP, British Petroleum, expoits more than 4 times as much American oil as Exxon

 

 

Yet it's always evile [American] Exxon that gets hoisted up the enviro-mentalist scapegoat pole...

 

Just a coinkidink?

 

 

 

[TChris]

It goes hand in hand with asking for bailout money.

Who asked for bailout money? All corporations? No. All financial institutions? No. Some large, failing financial institutions? Yes.

So, this does nothing to prove your point, since most corporations don't fit that description; most corporations did not ask and have not asked for bailout money.

A corporation IS a collective.

That's just plain wrong.

You can reach some very wrong conclusions when you begin with a false premise.

A corporation is like a legal individual who is not a real person. A corporation can be owned and managed by a single individual shareholder, as many attorneys are. (P.C. = Personal Corporation)

A corporate charter is just a tool. And like any tool, it is the manner in which it is used that determines the character of the result.

Again, wrong, or at best incomplete.

When you make up your own definitions along the way, you can always win the argument!

You could just as easily have written, "The Constitution is just a tool", or "Religion is just a tool".

While each of those could be thought of as "a tool" in some ways, the problem is the word "just", which suggests that "a tool" is all it is.

Corporatism is a form of collectivism

More of your newly-defined language...

The fact that the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other seems to be irrelevant in your world.

You've already admitted, and I have shown, that some corporations are not collective, even by your definition. And there are many collectivist organizations which are not corporations. So the connection is purely in your own mind.

Corporatism is the worship of the tool.

Worship??? Really?

Who is "worshipping" their corporation? Should I dare to ask for evidence of this absurd claim?

Even if I accept your invented definition, I can then dismiss your whole fantasy world if you can't prove that anyone really "worships" their corporate charter, since that would show that there is no "corporatism".

Some of the folks that worked at Argent Mortgage priorly worked at Enron. Are we seeing a pattern of (im)moral corporate, collective, behavior here? Hmmm.

LOL!

Really? Are you serious?

Wow.

What was the object of worship there? At Lehman Bros? At any of the imploding financial organizations?

Umm... I have no idea. But I'm guessing you intuitively know exactly what/whom each and every employee was worshipping.

Is your special definition of "worship" coming along soon?

> ...definition of "collective governance"?

The infrastructure by which governance is implemented. The Corporate Bureaucracy.

Of course! Since "collective" is definied as "corporate", "collective governance" is synonymous with "corporate governance".

Gotcha.

Fascism is a behavior inherent in Human nature, not a movement in an Italian opera; it is a behavior that is observable throughout human history.

It can be observed throughout the Bible, generally given the name Baal. Baal being a Hebrew word for Lord or Master.

Essential, it is the worship of governance, or government, and its various trappings - economic and otherwise.

Ahh...

So the Baal worshippers of the Old Testament were really just worshipping their corporations? And Fascism wasn't really started in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, but rather during Old Testament times?

Is the word "governance" in the Old Testament?

Historians will certainly want to know about your discoveries.

Got Bread and Circuses?

No, but you're giving me a headache.

[uncommonsense]

>>Your original post was railing against companies not paying taxes on overseas profits.

Quote please?

Sorry, I was several replies into the thread and see now your comments were only relating to collectivism. And I have not read your link but will put it onto my list.

"What you fail to acknowledge is that what we're presently experiencing is merely another iteration of the same phenomena described by Salvemini in 1936"

I wasn't failing to recognize our current situation, I was simply trying to stay on the topic of corporate taxes.

"Would you agree there should be separation between Corporation and State?"

Yes, and my comments in this topic and every other, have consistently espoused this. The previous Bush administration (globalist) and current Obumanusim administration (socialist) are very, very troubling and depressing.

[LomanBill]

>>A corporation IS a collective.
>>
>>That's just plain wrong.

 

No, your limited interpretation of the word "Corporate" is what's wrong.

 

"Corporate" is in fact synonymous with collective.

cor·po·rate (kôrpr-t, kôrprt)
adj.
1. Formed into a corporation; incorporated: the corporate companies of industrial America.
2. Of or relating to a corporation: corporate assets; corporate culture.
3. United or combined into one body; collective.
4. Of or relating to a corporative government or political system.

 

At Concordia University back in 1980something, I took a course entitled "Corporate Worship" - and that course had nothing to do with the worship of corporations.    In that context, it means a congregation of believers gathered for worship. 

 

Further, the Corporate body of Christ is constituted by all individual believers, cumulatively, together.

"For wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." --Matthew 18:20"

That is a reference to the Corporate body of Christ - the true Church.

 

...Indeed, "corporate" comes from "corpus" (body; i.e. hoc est corpus meum). Through the body of Christ (incarnate and sacramental; Rom. 6; I Cor. 11-12; ) the body of Christ (mystical) is created. Thus "when one member of the body suffers, all suffer" (I Cor. 12:26)....

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=14133

 

 

In both Theological and Secular usage - the word "Corporate" generally refers to individuals (plural) operating together, as one body.

 

Something else to bear in mind:

 

1 John 4:4-5
4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them,  

because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

The word "Corporate" is also synonymous with "in the world".

 

[TChris]

No, your limited interpretation of the word "Corporate" is what's wrong.

"Corporate" is in fact synonymous with collective.

Oh, now you want to use the other definition, not the one you started with (1./2. from your dictionary post)

How pathetically juvenile.

If we combine your new argument with your old, you must conclude that, because it is "Corporate", the "Corporate body of Christ" is "Collectivist" and therefore "Communist", since you have equated the three terms.

[LomanBill]

>>the topic of corporate taxes.

Rather difficult to distinguish which direction the taxes are flowing in the present corporal configuration though, isn’t it?

Hard to tell lately where “Bidness” starts and Gooberment begins too; on Wall Street at least.

[LomanBill]

>>Oh, now you want to use the other definition

 

Other?  No, all cited usages are part of the collective definition of the word.

 

Clearly the word "corporate" has a deeper meaning than the average sheeple has been edumacated to be aware of.

 

>>the "Corporate body of Christ" is "Collectivist"

 

Correct, The Church  is collectivist.

 

The difference between Christian collectivism and Communist/Corporatist collectivism is that the object of worship for the Christian collective is Christ/God - whereas the object of the Communist/Corporatist worship is nothing but a secular humanist corporal creation.

 

The Christian Church worships Christ/God - while the Communist/Corporatist collective worships only itself.

 

Again, it's really a 1st Commandment issue to which much of our present predicament can be traced.

Matthew 4.10: Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve...

 

[LomanBill]

>>What was the object of worship there? At Lehman Bros? At any of the imploding financial organizations?

>>Umm... I have no idea.

Very well then, let's ask the question a different way:   Whose will were they serving?

 

Got Moral Dilema?