An intel dump straight from the feddle gummint, itself.
The State Department’s country reports on terrorism. Softer than Little Green Footballs, tougher than al-Jazeera, that’s Foggy Bottom. And scroll down to the bottom for a podcast.
Joe Lieberman’s Senate committee report on homegrown terrorism. Seems the bastards know how to use the internet. Bastards being the terrorists, that is.
Henry Waxman’s House committee report on how our hospitals aren’t ready to absorb Madrid 3/11 type casualties.  Noooobody expects the Spanish emergency care system!  In addition to tackling that quite real issue, we might also ask under what circumstances we might have to. If we get hit by The Big One along the San Andreas fault, then sure; we need to be ready. But there was nothing inevitable about the seven years of thwarted terrorists’ plans since 9/11, remember.
How your gallon of gasoline breaks out, $$$-wise. I propose this modest threshold of entry into discussion about gas prices. People who don’t know the difference between a profit and a profit margin need not have their opinions heard.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 5/22 @ 3:36 pm #
- Just as an aside, Lieberman is on his way to McDinosaur’s spread this evening for a little tet-a-tet. Hmmmmmmm.
Comment by I can't believe its not SarahW on 5/22 @ 3:37 pm #
“know the difference between a profit and a profit margin ”
Curse you Fabio. Got me again.
Comment by Lurking Observer on 5/22 @ 4:07 pm #
Of course it was inevitable that there’d be no more attacks on US soil. After all, this was the outcry of the dispossessed, fearing the rising sea levels caused by America’s thirst for oil.
Having sent their message, the “terrorists,” aka the Minutemen of the Middle East, would have been content to sit down and negotiate with the American President, if only he had been willing to do so, probably over greenhouse gases and getting rid of those pesky JOOOOOOOSSSSSSSS.
Here’s hoping the next administration picks up on all this!
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 5:36 pm #
TSI – I would propose an addendum. In order to discuss gasoline profits one must also be able to compare and contrast profits to taxes paid. A local newscaster (idiot reading a teleprompter) was trying to sound smart and kept confusing the gross revenues of gas companies and actual profit.
Comment by Drumwaster on 5/22 @ 6:05 pm #
I read that Exxon Mobil (XOM) had paid more in 2006 corporate taxes than the combined income taxes of the lowest 50% of income earners for that same year. But by all means, let’s give them reason to relocate to other climes…
I also read that the oil industry makes a lower profit margin than most supermarkets, and food is more essential to our American way of life than oil is. Why can’t Congress do something about those profit-mongering grocers?
Comment by yourdaddy on 5/22 @ 6:13 pm #
You aren’t really trying to pass off that old data as representing the current profit environment, are you?
Those data were based on $3.04/gallon gasoline.
According to the EIA, the average price per gallon in the US is 20% higher than that today.
According to that chart, there is no profit in selling gasoline … only costs.
Crude Oil – 68.00 percent
Refining – 8.00 percent
Distribution & Marketing – 11.00 percent
Taxes – 13.00 percent
Total – 100%
In other words, there’s no profit, according to your government. And you’re trying to pass this off to us as important data we should believe?
Can you explain how Exxon booked $40 billion profit in one quarter on zero profit margin?
Sheesh. The analysis at this site has gone seriously downhill.
Where are the grownups?
Comment by McGehee on 5/22 @ 6:16 pm #
Underpants.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 5/22 @ 6:18 pm #
My gasoline prices aren’t a real issue since I live a mile from work and a mile from the grocery store. The bar is further, but I soldier on.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 5/22 @ 6:31 pm #
Actually, yourdaddy, the point is between how much do they take in each year and how much they are left with after paying all of their bills and taxes. The difference between income and payouts is the important one. What they are left as a percentage of overall income is the profit. Sort of like what is left after your gross pay for the month is reduced from your taxes and your expenditures to keep the lights on and food on the table. That.
Fool; the dollar amount is irrelevant – what is left to the company after all expenditures are subtracted from gross receipts?
Comment by B Moe on 5/22 @ 6:33 pm #
In other words, there’s no profit, according to your government. And you’re trying to pass this off to us as important data we should believe?
That chart has nothing to do with profit, Einstein, it is a breakdown of were the money is going. Part of the 68% crude oil cost is profit for the drillers. Part of the 8% refinery cost is profit for the refiners. Part of the 11% distribution and marketing cost is profit for the retailers. All of the 13% tax cost is profit for the government. What this means is that for imported oil, the domestic companies get 19% of the gross to cover their expenses and profits, while the government is taking 13% clear. Since most of the increase since that study have been due to the price of crude increasing, these numbers should still be fairly accurate.
Maybe we could try doing something in coloring book format for these folks.
Comment by alppuccino on 5/22 @ 6:36 pm #
Hey yourdaddy,
You know why you’re referring to the data as coming from “your government” as opposed to your government. I’m pretty sure that it’s because you failed the reading comprehension test to show an intelligence level higher than that of a old man’s used hanky and they denied your entry into America so you have to keep living in Dumbasabuttgnatistan.
You see “What you pay for a gallon of gasoline” is the breakdown of where your (you being the consumer numbnuts) money goes when you (the consumer, yourdaddy? yourdaddy? WAKE UP!!) buy it. The different entities must take their profit out of their respective segments.
wait a minute. Nobody is that hoe-handle stupid. TSI, are you pulling a fast one?
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 6:40 pm #
yourdaddy – Try reading for comprehension before going off all limp cocked.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 6:42 pm #
Dumbasabuttgnatistan – Insta-classic !
Comment by alppuccino on 5/22 @ 6:44 pm #
If I felt like yourdaddy could read, I would ask this question:
If gas went back to $1.50 a gallon, and the oil companies’ profits doubled, would you still be stupid? I mean upset? Keeping in mind that your grandma probably owns some Exxon/Mobile and the boost in her retirement plan might afford her the opportunity to finally buy you that new anterior fontanel protection helmet.
Comment by Darleen on 5/22 @ 7:02 pm #
yerdaddy-o
from Powerline on the
Congressional starchamber (since people like Dana Milbank of WaPo would rather just sniffle about oil exec salaries)
NIMBY, no drilling allowed, no exploration allowed, no nuclear power allowed … then to have Democrat congresscritters attempting to make American oil companies the BAD GUYS??
Oh, f**k you!
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 7:23 pm #
Why do I suspect that clips like that will not make the news?
Comment by Mikey NTH on 5/22 @ 7:38 pm #
Just the government-news industry complex at work, JD.
There are many ‘iron triangles’.
Comment by Merovign on 5/22 @ 11:58 pm #
Apart from “yourdaddy” reading comprehension problem, I would add to the “profits” rule that anyone who runs in screaming “But the prices are going up AAAAGHHHH” at the beginning of the summer (the prices go up at the beginning of every summer) be slapped in the mouth.
Just like the people who freak out over Global Warming every April and May because it’s getting warmer week to week.
Some people have the long-term memory of a dried trout. And a fully equal reasoning ability regarding economics.
Also, I’ve noticed that a lot of people can apparently learn to do other things – like drive, cook, etc., and don’t forget it all when they wake up the next morning. When they learn something about economics, however, they turn and look out the window, turn back, and *poof* it’s gone!
Comment by jon on 5/23 @ 4:47 am #
That Waxman report reads like a call for government subsidies into our nation’s healthcare, since the private sector just isn’t making the necessary investments toward our safety. Either the government (sometimes known as “we”) should pay the hospitals to have the needed materials and personnel ready for emergencies, or the reliance should be upon the hospitals themselves. Is the threat real enough for this investment? Who will get the blame if something happens?
I bet there isn’t anything past a regular (read: enough to get us into next week) supply of medicines and oxygen available at most hospitals. If supply chains are damaged (say, terrorists hit a few bridges here and there in some cities,) will there even be enough bleach to keep hospitals clean for a week? I have my doubts. But I can’t blame the hospitals for running on tight budgets, though I have absolutely serious doubts that any federal program will solve this. And I should know, since I am a certificate-holding FEMA-trained librarian. (It’s true, and throughout the training I couldn’t think of many scenarios which would make my skills vitally necessary. But what the hell, it beats actually working.)
Comment by Slartibartfast on 5/23 @ 8:11 am #
Oops, major fuckup in chart interpretation, there. Profit not broken out as a separate line-item doesn’t mean it’s not there. Part of refinery cost is profit. Part of D&M cost is profit. Some of the D&M profit goes to the transporters, some of it goes to the retail outlets, and some of it goes right back into the pockets of the oil companies. I think just about all of refinery profit goes back into big oil’s pockets, but not nearly all of refinery cost is profit. Some of it, for instance, is cost of energy needed to crack crude down into useable products. Some of it, too, is investment in infrastructure to keep up with demand.
Last year, big oil raked in, collectively, around 5% profit margin. Try checking out Google’s profit margin, if that makes your heart stutter. But make sure there’s a defib unit nearby, first.
Comment by JD on 5/23 @ 8:19 am #
If gas went back to $1.50 a gallon, and the oil companies’ profits doubled, would you still be stupid? I mean upset?
Comment by Slartibartfast on 5/23 @ 8:51 am #
Shorter me: profit is a cost, to the purchaser.
Comment by B Moe on 5/23 @ 9:17 am #
profit is a cost, to the purchaser.
As are taxes, which in this case exceed profits. Which is why intelligent people shake their heads in dismay when Congressional Democrats start screaming about taxing the windfall profits being some kind of fucking solution to high gas prices. If you can’t understand that, turn off the computer and go watch Nickelodean or something.
Comment by Dan Collins on 5/23 @ 9:24 am #
Nickle-odi-ous!
Comment by B Moe on 5/23 @ 10:16 am #
An example:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23183.html
Comment by JD on 5/23 @ 11:24 am #
I am waiting on a good explanation how taxing a company will ever cause their prices to decrease.
Comment by JD on 5/23 @ 11:27 am #
I propose a daily contest – Troll of the Day, sponsored by nishit. I would like to nominate yourdaddy and O’Doyle.
Comment by Merovign on 5/23 @ 1:48 pm #
I hope you packed a lunch.
Comment by Rusty on 5/23 @ 5:51 pm #
#28
I tried to hold my breath , but I farted.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 5/25 @ 7:09 am #
I hope you were agreeing with me, vigorously, because I definitely don’t disagree with any of the above. At present. I have noted previously, though, that tax on gasoline will cross over profit margin at some price (can’t recall, right offhand) because taxes are pennies per gallon, while profit is percent of the price. That trend is already making itself seen, but we’re still well to the tax-is-bigger side of the line.
Well before we get to that point, though, I expect government will convert the excise tax on gas to something else that ensures that it’ll always be a bigger component of price than profit.