Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
On Mon, 01 May 2006 10:16:42 -0400
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net> wrote:
> - Please explain in simple, economically sound terms (using math),
> *how* the oil companies are profiting hand over fist, at our expense
> - I am not a bozo, I am knowledgable and well educated (about to
> finish an M.S. in CompEng) and I voted for Bush, *gasp* even though I
> *didn't* like him. Know why? Even though I didn't like him, he was
> still better than the alternative.
US $9,900,000,000 (billion) profits /by one oil company/ in one
quarter when retail prices were skyrocketing. Does that seem like the
oil cartel has the American interests at heart?
From last October, here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9854784/
------------------------------------------------------
By Anne Thompson
Chief financial correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:20 p.m. ET Oct. 28, 2005
[...]
NEW YORK - In a summer marked by hurricanes and $3 gasoline, the oil
companies struck gold.
Friday, Chevron joined the eye-popping profits parade. The nation's No.
2 oil company reported earnings of $3.6 billion. The totals only get
bigger: Conoco Phillips made $3.8 billion, BP made $6.5 billion, Royal
Dutch Shell made $9 billion and Exxon Mobil raked in a whopping $9.9
billion in just three months.
“Exxon made more than any other company, as a matter of fact,” says
Howard Silverblatt, a market equity analyst with Standard & Poor's.
“Their profits by themselves were more than 492 companies made for the
entire year within the S&P 500.”
------------------------------------------------------------
Something around 40 billion /in profit/ for 3 months. IS there nothing
wrong with this picture?
From
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TAL111A.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Taliban, on several occasions, offered to turn over Osama bin Laden
to a third country for trial, once the case against him was made known.
The Bush administration rejected this outright, making no effort to
explore that possibility or to negotiate. Would it not have been far
more preferable to at least try that solution rather than proceeding to
bomb, causing untold deaths of civilians, jeopardizing the lives of
U.S. troops, alienating a large proportion of the world's population,
and risking a wider world war?
------------------------------------------------------------
Is nothing wrong with this picture?
Cybe R. Wizard
--
When Windows are opened the bugs come in.
Winduhs
Reply to: