1 members (1 invisible),
27
guests, and
26
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158 |
Which companies are the most profitable? In 2012 both Chevron and Exxon Mobil's net profit was less than 10% whereas Apples was over 20%...you don't know what you are talking about. You are just repeating tired environmentalist talking points. BTW, these are easy to find numbers all you need to do is type XOM, AAPL and CVX in Yahoo Finance.
Actually I DO know what I'm talking about, WBT. According to this Wikipedia Table and other sources, the most profit ever made by a company in human history is $46.5 billion by Exxon Mobil. ExxonMobil also holds the 2nd 3rd, 4th, and 5th spots for the most profit in a single year. Oil companies hold more than 60% of the spots in this table of record profits (37/61). Whatever you think about tax breaks for them, lets be clear the oil companies are quite profitable. I can't believe this was even a question. Bee was right about 100 posts ago, this is like arguing with a 5 year old, it just keeps going and going. Unless there's something more to add about Solar Energy, let's wrap this thread up. It's getting very repetitive. If this is about winning, congratulations, you wore everyone down, your certificate is in the mail.
Last edited by SierraNevada; 01/25/14 10:36 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 172
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 172 |
I think the question is regarding the "tax breaks" or "subsidies". I'm not certain but I think the arguments are is if oil companies get any different tax breaks than any other corporation. What also seems implied by the earlier WSJ article is that "Renewable" energy is not profitable and the only way for it to survive, at least in the short term, is a different type of subsidy that is not at all analogous to the tax breaks received by Big Oil and other corporations.
My take is that it seems to be a very weak argument to bring Big Oil into the discussion on whether or not Renewable Energy deserves subsidies. If you start that premise then it seems to me like one needs to supply counterpoints to the experience in Europe where renewable energy and subsidies are not fairing well.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158 |
Chicago, you raise valid points about how "on topic" subsidies are to solar energy but its been discussed already. This is a long thread with a lot of divergence going on (from WWII to Hollywood to Nobel prizes for economics to Europe to population growth). There should be plenty of links and discussion for anyone interested in every aspect of solar energy, if you can sift through the haystack.
Its become pointless to just keep going on and on endlessly. The debate has digressed to how profitable the oil companies are and how many people the planet can hold. It's a bit ridiculous at this point.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253 |
SN,
Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about. Profits are based on percentages, not gross amounts...you know like the federal deficit is not based on its gross amount but as percentage of GDP. 9% isn't a whole lot of dough, considering the risk they take with exploration and refining plus they give a few points back to shareholders in dividends. They could put the whole shebang in preferred shares and walk away with close to 8%. But you want to take part of that away just because you don't like them.
Percentages tell what you can do going forward not gross amount.
Thanks for providing us with grade A stage one thinking...see Thomas Sowell for an explanation.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158 |
Sorry for confusing you, WBT. When I wrote that Exxon Mobil was the most profitable company in human history, I meant they made the most profit of any company in human history. And they did - also 2nd place, 3rd place, 4th place, and 5th place. Redefining "profit" so you can claim I don't know what I'm talking about and then accusing me of "Stage One" thinking is baiting and insulting.
Can we find some common ground to bring this to an amicable conclusion? Do we agree on anything? Maybe not, but we should be able to end this l o n g thread without accusations.
Last edited by SierraNevada; 01/26/14 05:06 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253 |
SN,
Exxon Mobil is only the most profitable by your fallacious metric. Can you do more with 9% raise or a 20% raise? BTW, why do you want to punish a company that gained 10.5%/year over the last 5 years...it is expended to expand at a rate of .77% over the next 5, according to analysis because you and your ilk don't like their business but a company like Apple who has gained 58% over the last 5 years and will continue to grow at a 16%/year clip for the next 5...nada, because you like them. Rules are for everyone, not your favorites. Want to tell me what XOM is getting that is special...I've asked that of you for over a week and you haven't been able to give a cogent response. It's been their bad and they need to be punished for being successful.
How can we end this amiably? I don't think it can be done, since you decided to call me a liar...that's what bs means, and implying I'm someone who gets their information from talk radio. I think I have accurately described your thinking...solar, solar, solar...and nothing else, this all occurs in a vacuum. I've given example after example of what will happen if you use capital inefficiently...and what has happened in the past. Nope, solar, solar, solar. That is stage one, ignore the unintended consequences, solar, solar, solar.
My position has been consistent, let it compete on a level playing field. Let's make it on its own.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,524 Likes: 105
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,524 Likes: 105 |
Good grief, WBT! Your pro-Big-Oil rants are incredible.
Why in the world are you so much against using solar power? It is really the ONLY energy source that is unlimited and its use has NO negative impact on our environment.
There are plenty of reasons everyone in the world should be more careful with the use of fossil and other fuel sources, and the fact that the supply is finite apparently carries zero weight with your reasoning.
All you seem to care about is treating every energy source as a commodity, where the cheapest is best and the richest people should be able to burn it as wantonly as they please. And it's just too bad for those poor suckers that are trying to cut back on their population growth and those poor suckers that don't live on land where there is a glut of natural gas. Let them eat cake!
I live in a city where stupid voters passed an initiative outlawing the use of water meters because they didn't believe over-users should be penalized. Even though the water table has dropped a hundred feet in the past century, and now they have to compete with agriculture for surface water. Fortunately, in order to qualify for water supplied by (ugh!) the federal government, the city is now required to utilize water meters. Funny part is that my water bill has actually decreased. Now, the same group of idiots is trying to pass an initiative preventing the city from improving the water-delivery infrastructure. Kick the can down the road -- I don't care, because I'll be dead and gone before everything falls apart.
At some point in time, a majority in the world will come to realize how penny-wise and pound foolish this commodity-based waste of oil and fossil fuels is, and how valuable utilizing solar energy is. But it is clear that you will never be convinced.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 579 Likes: 3
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 579 Likes: 3 |
Six pages! Good grief. Paleeeezzzzze, is it not time to put this thread to rest?
For me, this really raises a question: So, why is it that many (most?) people, when presented with sound and factual arguments, turn a deaf ear, unless those sound and factual arguments support their own point of view? I am really thinking more on a national level here, about our Congress and Senate, but in some small measure the comments apply to our community here as well.
Why do we become liberals or conservatives (with a few independents thrown in), and adopt the party line, without independent thought or reason.
When is the last time you observed a Liberal or a Conservative listen thoughtfully to the others point of view? No doubt there are exceptions, but not so many I think.
Will we ever evolve from our “Pack mentality”, and base our opinions on facts and reason?
Perhaps not in the near term, since I believe it is widely held that most of our decisions are made based on emotion, not reason and rational thinking. When you see something moving in the grass do you look closer to see what it is, or do you immediately step back, fearful of what it might be?
According to Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University in Atlanta and the author of a book called “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation” (Public Affairs), what decides elections are people’s emotional reactions, even if they don’t recognize it.
We see this “pack mentality” exemplified at the State and National level with the performance of our legislators.
In California our legislators were unable to submit a budget that our governor would sign for 85 days past the due date. Our Federal representatives cannot agree on a course of action to deal with Healthcare, Education, Immigration, the Banking Crisis, etc…., without self serving pork barrel additions. Even if they do "agree" the second guessing/back stabbing never ends!
And, we see this behavior here on “The Whitney Zone”. There seems to be no end to the debate, and little agreement on any “facts”.
I wonder if this is a function of “evolution”. That some of us learned early on that for the individual to succeed the community/society must succeed. That no matter what a fine seaman (or woman) you are, if the ship sinks, you will go with it. While others learned that self reliance was the pathway to success. That we evolved with two different philosophical points of view. Hence, the division between Liberals and Conservatives.
The Liberals recognize the “greater good”, and are willing to make personal sacrifices for the community. They have a greater appreciation for the society, and can see “globally”. They understand the value of unity, and are willing to share.
On the other had we have the Conservatives, who tend to be focused on smaller social groups (could be a group of one). Want it now, and tend to take care of # 1 only. Really do not have a moral conscience (or much of one), and feel that everyone should fend for themselves. You know “Take personal responsibility”, (unless you are a banker).
I guess you can tell from my characterzation of the Liberals vs. Conservatives which side of the debate I fall on, but I do try to make an honest attempt to consider the data. I do not think the Oil companies are evil. They have a business built on a finite commodity, and they are simply charting a course that maximizes the profit they can make off of that finite commodity. That they do not use some of their vast cash reserves to develop an alternative business that not only makes them money, but serves society in a better way is a mystery to me, but I have not walked a mile in their shoes.
Perhaps it is time to put this thread to rest?
Flame on:-)
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,524 Likes: 105
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,524 Likes: 105 |
Disclaimer: No fossil fuels were used generating this picture. ...well only a tiny bit. SourceArtist: Flame Painter - Peter Blaskovic
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158 |
One solar flare equals the entire annual energy consumption of all humans on planet earth - for about 100,000 years. Taken with an Apple iPhone 5s
Last edited by SierraNevada; 01/28/14 08:00 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253 |
Steve, Big Oil rants...where? These are facts. They are available on Yahoo Finance...or any financial engine. I currently have no skin in the game with XOM or CVX, the two companies I have cited. The facts are these companies make good rate of return but XOM under preformed the market this past year...gaining only 4 to 5%...S&P 500 gained 26.5%. The rant is Sierra Nevada's, who wants to extraordinary measures against these companies. He has stated they make too much money and he uses a stupid metric...a raw number, I hope his day job isn't money management. His rant continues with the $4 bln tax breaks for the oil companies...I asked numerous times what are these breaks and how do the differ from what other companies get. He refuses to back up rhetoric with anything factual. What exactly are pictures with kids extolling solar? Rant? I think so...but that's me. I will state it again, I am not against solar...I am against subsidizing it. This is an inefficient us of capital and will lead to an exodus of jobs...not buggy whip jobs, to places that produce cheap power. We do not live in a vacuum...for every action there is a reaction. Actually Steve, energy is a commodity, try putting strictly renewables into your home, or domestic gasoline into your car. Inexpensive energy does benefit the least fortunate among us. How does this subsidize thingy work...just see how it benefits Elon Musk and Tesla and the buyers or these vehicles. See this WSJ piece http://tinyurl.com/msevm7g It ain't the Joe Two and half buck chuck who is get rich off these subsidies. Road blocks to economic activity general reduced business...see jobs and business start ups. See Hollywood going elsewhere to produce films. Increase cost of power is a road block. As for your last paragraph, why don'cha go down to your local Toyota dealer and demand you pay full MSRP for a Cambry with all the bells and whistle then demand to accept delivery on a stripped down Carolla. That is what you are asking of the public to do with your not ready for prime time energy source.
Last edited by wbtravis; 01/28/14 10:13 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 453 Likes: 1
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 453 Likes: 1 |
Really John? And you ask why people can't get along. You've just said that half of voting population have no moral conscience but you understand the value of unity and sacrifice. Paleeeezzzzeee indeed. It may be time to step off the pedestal and take a look in the mirror. Why do we become liberals or conservatives (with a few independents thrown in), and adopt the party line, without independent thought or reason.
When is the last time you observed a Liberal or a Conservative listen thoughtfully to the others point of view? No doubt there are exceptions, but not so many I think.
Will we ever evolve from our “Pack mentality”, and base our opinions on facts and reason?
The Liberals recognize the “greater good”, and are willing to make personal sacrifices for the community. They have a greater appreciation for the society, and can see “globally”. They understand the value of unity, and are willing to share.
On the other had we have the Conservatives, who tend to be focused on smaller social groups (could be a group of one). Want it now, and tend to take care of # 1 only. Really do not have a moral conscience (or much of one), and feel that everyone should fend for themselves. You know “Take personal responsibility”, (unless you are a banker).
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158 |
WBT, we've spent enough time debating the hypocracy that oil companies need to keep their subsidies because they don't really make much profit, but somehow we can't afford subsidies to help jump start renewable energy. We all know you'll never stop, but I'll play along a little further when I have a few minutes, like right now on my lunch break. First off, net profit is a standard metric. It's used as the primary measure of the size and profitability of any large company. From there you can look deeper into other details if you want, but net profit is first and foremost. If you choose to look exclusively at profit percentage, then the pawn shop down the street outperforms every Fortune 500 company, but only cleared maybe $100K profit. A street corner drug dealer would be astronomically profitable by that definition. As for energy subsidies, the following data is from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts who did an elaborate study on energy subsidies back in 2006. You claim that Apple and everybody else gets these $3.5 billion subsidies. WRONG. The follow list shows SPECIFIC subsidies only for the oil and gas industry. Forgive the format. Here's the link to the data. Estimated Federal Oil and Gas Subsidies in 2006 Federal Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies Subsidy Type Amount Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs Credit taxes $1,100,000,000 Percentage Depletion Allowance taxes $1,000,000,000 Alternative Fuel Production Credit taxes $890,000,000 Exemption from Passive Loss Limitation for Working Interests in Oil and Gas Properties taxes $30,000,000 Natural Gas Distribution Pipelines Treated as 15-Year Property taxes $20,000,000 Temporary 50 percent Expensing for Equipment Used in the Refining of Liquid Fuels taxes $10,000,000 Amortize all geological and geophysical expenditures over two years taxes $10,000,000 Subtotal $3,060,000,000 Federal Oil and Gas Royalty SubsidiesU.S. Department of Interior, Oil and Gas Royalty access to Losses on 1998 and 1999 Gulf Oil and Gas Leases nat. resrces $142,857,143 Federal Oil and Gas Research and DevelopmentU.S. Department of Energy, Oil and Gas Research direct and Development spending $64,350,000 U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management direct Service Oil Spill Research spending $6,900,000 Subtotal $71,250,000 Federal Oil and Gas Petroleum Reserve SubsidiesU.S. Department of Energy, Strategic Petroleum direct Reserve spending $207,340,000 U.S. Department of Energy, Naval Petroleum and Oil direct Shale Reserves spending $21,285,000 Subtotal $228,625,000 --------------------------------- Total $3,502,732,143
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572 |
Nearly a third of this is the depletion allowance, the only case I know of for treatment of something that has not yet been produced and may not even exist as a depreciable asset. Can I get the same allowance starting right now on everything I expect to get out of my 124 acres for the next 20 years or so?
Wherever you go, there you are. SPOTMe!
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253 |
SN,
Now, depletion allowance is special? This is depreciation, just like any other business get, as is all this stuff.
Thanks for proving this is nothing different than any other company gets. What do you think IBM does with its equipment vis a vis taxes? Amortize it, depreciate it. Have you ever heard the term EBITA? Obviously, you don't know a damn thing about business or you would be embarrassed by your last post.
Net profit...no, it's but one measurement. Growth is another. P/E, expense ratios, it's endless. We are not talking about drug dealers or pawn shops...to mention it shows how desperate you have become for Animal Farm visions of some animals being more equal than others.
$3.5 bln...heck, XOM paid $84 bln. in income taxes three last years.
This is laughable.
Last edited by wbtravis; 01/29/14 09:38 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253 |
I know I am only suppose to put a positive spin on solar and not point out the realities of it...
From Walter Russell Meade's blog,
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported this morning that one in three workers in Germany’s solar industry lost their job last year. By November, there were a mere 4,800 employees left in the sector, the first time in four years that number has fallen below the 5,000-mark. That’s less than half 2012′s levels, when there were still 10,200 solar jobs. These revelations come hard on the heels of news that the $30 billion German taxpayers shuffled into green subsidies last year didn’t actually make the country any cleaner, and that more brown coal was burned there in 2013 than in any year since 1990. ---
In a LA Times editorial yesterday, the anonymous editorial staff bemoaned the fact that United States was awash in NG because it increase the price spreads between renewables and NG. They were did not like what was happening in the EU, you know, burning lignite and softening targets because their collective economies are in the doldrums.
If you don't do what is in your economic best interest as a society you will be poorer for it.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 172
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 172 |
How do we have 6 pages worth of discussion regarding solar energy and the appropriateness of government subsidies without the topic of Solyndra coming up?
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253 |
Chicagocwright,
No, I did not mention Solyndra, or the other failures, and global warming on purpose. This is about electrical power generation and the best way to do it at this time. The solar energy proponents here think if you build it, they will come, where just the opposite occurs. They do not want to talk about the neither the enrichment of venture capitalists nor shareholders at the expense of the rate and taxpayers...let alone the jobs that will be lost to those locations with inexpensive power. They would rather talk about the evil oil companies being not being able to depreciate assets like every other company.
I've used the EU, most specifically Germany, because we heading down the same demographic road. The concept of vibrant welfare state needing growing populations causes cognitive disodence in their ranks. We want zero population growth and burgeoning state but that cannot happen when your beneficiary/worker ratio is 1:1, which is heading to EU.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158 |
WBT, you sure have an issue acknowledging Exxon Mobil's record $46.5 billion profit and the concept that NET PROFIT is THE BOTTOM LINE. I run a side business and my wife is fully self employed. We're not business experts but first and foremost we want to know how much we make each year. That's NET PROFIT, you know, THE BOTTOM LINE.
I wonder what will happen if I put 63% profit on my Tax forms. I'll tell the IRS WBT says net profit isn't really important. He's an expert and he says the percentage profit is all that's needed.
Your insults and name calling is getting too juvenile to even dignify with replies any more.
|
|
|
Re: Solar Energy
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,524 Likes: 105
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,524 Likes: 105 |
WBT wrote: > Obviously, you don't know a damn thing about... > ...how desperate you have become for Animal Farm visions... > This is laughable.
WBT, your insults have made any dialogue here feel like mud wrestling in the gutter. I'd like to respond to some of your one-sided views, but this is getting ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|