Comments on: Exxon Results http://timworstall.com/2008/02/02/exxon-results/ It is all obvious or trivial except... Thu, 24 May 2012 02:15:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: BE http://timworstall.com/2008/02/02/exxon-results/comment-page-1/#comment-6474 BE Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:59:07 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2008/02/02/exxon-results/#comment-6474 Would that be the public coffers of Kazakhstan or Indonesia for 'helping' them exploit their natural resources? Would that be the public coffers of Kazakhstan or Indonesia for ‘helping’ them exploit their natural resources?

]]> By: EclectEcon http://timworstall.com/2008/02/02/exxon-results/comment-page-1/#comment-6467 EclectEcon Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:22:44 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2008/02/02/exxon-results/#comment-6467 To everyone who objects to oil-company profits, I suggest that they had an option of sharing in those profits by buying some of the company common stock in the past. That they chose not to take a risk is no reason to compensate them now, even indirectly and inefficiently via the gubmnt. To everyone who objects to oil-company profits, I suggest that they had an option of sharing in those profits by buying some of the company common stock in the past. That they chose not to take a risk is no reason to compensate them now, even indirectly and inefficiently via the gubmnt.

]]> By: David Kiltie http://timworstall.com/2008/02/02/exxon-results/comment-page-1/#comment-6456 David Kiltie Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:51:55 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2008/02/02/exxon-results/#comment-6456 Tim, a relevant post in view of Shell's announcement of "obscene " profits this week. No doubt Polly Toynbee will claim that Exxon is in fact subsidised by the Federal Government because it pays $29bn in tax rather than $60bn. Another irony, many of the people complaining loudest about oil company profits have huge chunks of their own pension funds invested in those same companies. It is disappointing that many so-called right wing newspapers spout the same economically illiterate line about "£1.5m per hour" you see in the Guardian and Independent. Tim, a relevant post in view of Shell’s announcement of “obscene ” profits this week. No doubt Polly Toynbee will claim that Exxon is in fact subsidised by the Federal Government because it pays $29bn in tax rather than $60bn.

Another irony, many of the people complaining loudest about oil company profits have huge chunks of their own pension funds invested in those same companies.

It is disappointing that many so-called right wing newspapers spout the same economically illiterate line about “£1.5m per hour” you see in the Guardian and Independent.

]]> By: BlacquesJacquesShellacques http://timworstall.com/2008/02/02/exxon-results/comment-page-1/#comment-6451 BlacquesJacquesShellacques Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:03:56 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2008/02/02/exxon-results/#comment-6451 Your last paragraph is wrong, wrong, wrong and entirely unfair and misleading. The $40 billion is also going to get taxed and the minions of the state will get their filth hands on some sizable chunk of that too. And where is Mark Braund with a comment or a post to castigate the vile and filthy shareholders for their greed? Your last paragraph is wrong, wrong, wrong and entirely unfair and misleading.

The $40 billion is also going to get taxed and the minions of the state will get their filth hands on some sizable chunk of that too.

And where is Mark Braund with a comment or a post to castigate the vile and filthy shareholders for their greed?

]]>