Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

flanderguitar t1_itznmav wrote

Energy crisis...record profits. Tell me you're scamming the world without telling me you're scamming the world.

355

sanash t1_itzrawe wrote

Same thing with the "inflation" issue. Corporations likely decided to fuck over the consumers to make up for the lower profits in 20-21, found that most people didn't change their spending habits because people still need to live.

They saw their quarterly reports and decided to say fuck it, keep the prices high and continue the screwing of consumers/workers.

131

richalex2010 t1_iu0krm5 wrote

Normal inflation is definitely happening too, you can't print as much money as we did in the last couple of years without inflation. That's not the only thing causing prices to go up though.

7

neok182 t1_iu4malb wrote

Absolutely but it's bullshit that the media and right wing plane 20-100% price increases on ~10% inflation.

Saw a post last week I think showing the average price of Halloween candy up 40% pre-pandemic. Inflation isn't 40% so that's just price gouging.

From gpus and cars to basically every single item in your grocery store it's 10% inflation and 90% corporate greed, profiteering and price gouging.

4

chapstickbomber t1_iu69gap wrote

Profits are up $1T, 4% extra share of GDP, and some people don't see that as proof of price gouging. It's pretty fuckin funny.

4

neok182 t1_iu6ax77 wrote

I know. Open your freaking eyes people. They are even bragging about it on quarterly profits. I think it was target that had a quarterly call where they actually said oh we have to stop raising prices because we hit how high people will actually spend on essentials.

2

balbok7721 t1_iu3jjh2 wrote

And the energy crisis in Europe was just a dream. We don't need gas for literally anything. We don't need it for heat. We don't don't need is for chemistry. We don't need it for avoiding blackouts in France. We don't need it for chemistry. We don't need it for agriculture. And so forth.

When do people finally stop with that money supply bullshit. Yes, the US printed a shitton but there are more immediate factors in the play. Raising isn't a good idea because everything is funded by credit. Including that little housing crisis everyone is complaining about

I also didn't talk about China's bullshittery. There are so many factors without money supply that we should stop focusing on it

0

thespawnkiller t1_itztrk4 wrote

They've been scamming the world for a long time. It's just getting more blatant because they know no one is going to stop them.

They're giving us all the middle finger and rubbing it our faces.

44

Laruae t1_iu0csdk wrote

Nationalize the energy industry in each country and be done with it.

They are literally destroying the countries they sell energy to.

16

graydf t1_iu0jyfy wrote

Fuck off commie.

−25

Cdwoods1 t1_iu0ll1n wrote

You really know how to make a compelling argument.

12

Laruae t1_iu0uahb wrote

Nationalizing the energy sector doesn't make the country communist.

Many countries around the world have nationally owned or controlled powelines, train tracks, etc.

It works very well.

6

UNOvven t1_iu14yy0 wrote

In fact, its when those nationally owned things get privatised that they tend to go to shit. See for example the UK railway system.

8

graydf t1_iu19cu8 wrote

Ya that works great in Venezuela.

−7

kahurangi t1_iu2997n wrote

Not every country would be an energy exporter like Venezuela was, or get hammered with sanctions by the states presumably. This is pretty simple stuff, I'm sure if you applied yourself you'd be able to understand.

5

StuStutterKing t1_iu33b2g wrote

I am an avowed capitalist. Capitalist markets, and specifically the modern global private market, are quite possibly the second greatest human achievement thus far behind Wikipedia.

Private markets, however, work best when competition is best. That is not necessarily true when it comes to public goods, such as natural resources and the energy grid. Here, stability, ease of access, and widespread infrastructure (even in areas where it may not be monetarily beneficial to do so) outweigh the current need for private variation and the additional profit margin.

3

ActualSpiders t1_iu0igsf wrote

Once they realized people would blame anything else besides the corporations for the price increases, they just kept increasing prices. Funny, that.

16

[deleted] t1_iu2biff wrote

[removed]

−7

ActualSpiders t1_iu2efps wrote

Ummm, what? Oil cartels totally do decide on global energy prices. Look at what Saudi Arabia is trying to do right now...

5

[deleted] t1_iu2o1d1 wrote

[removed]

−5

ActualSpiders t1_iu2zgac wrote

Today you learned Saudi Arabia is one of the key & founding members of OPEC - the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries - and therefore part of the cartel that, by and large, does set oil prices on the world market.

And as has been noted repeatedly if only you'd read world news, they've been jacking their prices sky-high because they only recently noted that such price hikes would be blamed on political actors instead of the oil producers themselves.

This isn't rocket science.

7

[deleted] t1_iu32t8c wrote

[removed]

−2

ActualSpiders t1_iu3981o wrote

Sure. There's no connection between oil companies and oil producers. There's certainly no reason to think that oil companies making record profits has anything to do with the Saudi royal family combined being worth almost $1.5 trillion dollars. Yep, nothing linking those things at all.

3

[deleted] t1_iu41ujl wrote

[removed]

1

ActualSpiders t1_iu56j99 wrote

No, it's the exact same reason every monopoly or cartel doesn't constantly raise their prices - a combination of topping out what the market can/will pay for the product (car travel in the US went down markedly over the spring & summer because gas was too expensive) and also wanting to stay "below the radar" because when consumers finally realize how they're being played they tend to demand action from their government.

This has all been studied extensively in economics & understood for generations now. Again, it ain't rocket science.

0

[deleted] t1_iu59ln5 wrote

[removed]

1

ActualSpiders t1_iu5bac3 wrote

Supply and demand work differently in a market where supply is dominated by a cartel. Ho read some basic econ books and then get back to me because it's clear your understanding of the subject isn't sufficient to run a lemonade stand. Good day.

0

HobbitFoot t1_itzxcg3 wrote

You don't make record profits when the price of the thing you still is low.

11

thisvideoiswrong t1_iu0ajt3 wrote

You would if the free market were real. Profit margins are supposed to be miniscule because corporations have to compete for market share with the infinite number of other corporations making identical products, so they have to cut prices as much as they possibly can, and then find ways to lower costs further so they can lower prices more and get ahead. They're supposed to make money on volume when they come up with a way to do their business really well and get more market share. In that case low prices would mean a big innovation and more buyers, which would result in more profit.

But of course that's not how it works. There are only a handful of corporations in most lines of work, and they collude to set prices high together so they can all enjoy large profit margins. And covid and supply chain problems are giving them an excuse to increase those profit margins even further without people blaming them.

14

HobbitFoot t1_iu0e00p wrote

That isn't how profit margins work in resource extraction.

Some sites have a low extraction cost, like Saudi Arabia, while other sites have a high extraction cost like Alberta. The cost of oil has little to do with the cost of extracting that oil.

So, when the price is low, it is economically viable for Saudi Arabia to pump while it isn't for Alberta. This is what restricts the supply. When the price is high, it is economically viable for both areas to pump, increasing supply. However, Saudi Arabia makes more money per gallon when the price is higher than when the price is low.

Substitution goods, like renewable energy, take years to build out. So, when you have an oil shock like now, it takes a while to stabilize. You may also have a case where the subscription good costs more.

8

Mist_Rising t1_iu0x5n1 wrote

His economic theory is 101 level. It looks at the economy like everything else is equal, when in reality nothing is.

There are fields where his idea is closer to truth, fast food and grocery stores have low margins for example, but even then record prices occur at variable times. Grocery stores are making more currently due to inflation for example, but it's record profit that aren't as meaningful as it sounds.

He also forgot the capital part of capitalism, you can't just pluck a new company down and start selling. It takes money (capital) to build a store, get goods, get employees. This means competition is always based on how likely a return is for capital spent.

6

thisvideoiswrong t1_iu3nh9g wrote

But if it's a free market then obviously there are no barriers to entry, so why haven't all the companies adopted this apparently better business strategy of pumping oil in Saudi Arabia? Obviously they can't, but that's the point. The Invisible Hand of the Free Market can only lead to the most positive results for society if consumers have perfect information, but we know almost nothing; have infinite choices, but we have at best a handful; and are totally rational, but humans are anything but. The market doesn't work in the real world, it just doesn't, and we have to stop pretending that whatever the market does must be right. We have to accept that government must intervene when the market fails.

3

HobbitFoot t1_iu3s8yy wrote

So invade Saudi Arabia?

1

thisvideoiswrong t1_iu3tg48 wrote

How about we start with an actually effective windfall profits tax (not building in absurd loopholes), and go on to jail time for executives implicated in price gouging if needed. On this issue, there's so much more we should be doing on so many issues.

2

HobbitFoot t1_iu3udqg wrote

Is there price gouging or was it just the market reacting to a supply squeeze and existing infrastructure not in place to adjust for shifts in locations of supply?

At the point where the different governments want to dictate price, why not have consumer nations nationalize their energy industries?

0

GreedyNovel t1_iubfklr wrote

Every economist in the world knows full well that the simplistic assumptions you've mentioned here aren't really true and are only there to help Econ 101 students start to learn the subject. If you study the field more deeply you'll see these assumptions are relaxed to varying degrees.

You aren't exactly breaking new ground here, you're just operating under the assumption that Econ 101 is being taught as the "Truth" to everything when in fact it isn't.

1

thisvideoiswrong t1_iubiu6k wrote

Unfortunately there's a massive difference between what economists know and what conservative politicians talk about. And the media will never admit that those politicians are clearly wrong and probably deliberately lying (as a practical matter, when that power doesn't go to consumers it goes to big business, and conservatives care about little else besides what's good for big business). So in any policy discussion we get huge numbers of people saying that the market will take care of it, and they're wrong.

1

GreedyNovel t1_iubnf90 wrote

Politicians always lie. Liberal politicians do too, of course, for their own special interests and donors.

It's all about convincing Joe Public who doesn't know very much or give much thought to these matters to peacefully line up at the polls instead of violently marching on the streets. Not much more than that, but that's socially useful too.

1

groveborn t1_iu29vfr wrote

One corporation raises prices during a global crisis, it's gouging. All of them do it, it's inflation.

In this case, raise fuel prices and everyone has to raise prices - inflation.

6

gopoohgo t1_iu0c4b5 wrote

>The UK-headquartered oil company said it had not paid the levy and did not expect to throughout 2022, because its British corporate entity did not make any profits during the quarter, in part, because of heavy spending on drilling more oil in the North Sea.

>However, Sunak’s scheme also introduced extended tax breaks for investment in extraction in North Sea oilfields. For every £1 businesses spent in the North Sea, they could reduce their taxes by 91p. It also does not cover profits made from forecourts, from refining or from trading shipments of oil and gas – areas where the company has made huge sums this year.

Appears that the windfall tax pertains to income directly from UK operations and that profits from the UK division were offset by the tax incentive wrote in May 2022 that allowed companies to offset 91% of the cost of North Sea development.

93

Mist_Rising t1_iu0y4af wrote

That's normally how these stories work out. The headline provides rage while the story reveals that they weren't just pocketing it. For other excellent examples see Amazon which use to the king of these headlines because it's Revenue went up but didn't pay taxes because it was spending it all too.

Or to put it simply; news sells fake anger.

14

Interesting_Total_98 t1_iu1usfz wrote

Nothing they quoted contradicts the outrage. I don't see comments here calling it illegal or inexplicable, and many are skeptical of tax breaks like this one.

> It also does not cover profits made from forecourts, from refining or from trading shipments of oil and gas – areas where the company has made huge sums this year.

20

TBradley t1_iu1d4r7 wrote

The fact that the windfall tax doesn’t cover refining profits is mind boggling.

18

richraid21 t1_iu22iav wrote

Why would you want to discourage refinement when there is the potential for shortages across the continent.

Think, buddy.

−8

The_Yarichin_Bitch t1_iu2x77f wrote

But is is spent on things it needs to be spent on or spent to appear to not profit? The latter is usually the case...

3

ghombie t1_iu3w2lh wrote

Holy run on sentence Batman! Sounds like 'An incursion underwater to re-take an impregnable fortress held by an elite team of U.S. Marines, in possession of eighty-one hostages and fifteen guided rockets loaded with V.X. poison gas'

1

CincyStout t1_itznmp7 wrote

Corporate greed is destroying the world...

91

Mythosaurus t1_iu26v86 wrote

And they’ve got the most powerful populations either invested in the system or too exhausted to challenge it.

3

Try_Another_Please t1_itzoarb wrote

The fact that people tolerate any politician who doesn't obliterate these companies in taxes is just ridiculous

61

[deleted] t1_itzugpk wrote

[removed]

11

rhinotomus t1_iu085uy wrote

And hmm what’s that? The shareholders ARE our politicians? Weird how that works

5

GreedyNovel t1_iubft51 wrote

Well of course it does. Keep in mind that many "regular people" pensions are directly tied to those shareholder returns too. If you're a union worker (firefighter, teacher, etc.) your pension absolutely depends on how well investments go.

1

VentureQuotes t1_iu03kjp wrote

Better re-elect the tories just in case

“In case of what?” you might ask

Who fucken knows

23

jezra t1_iu096kr wrote

And Charles paid zero inheritance tax

it's almost as if tax law is written by the wealthy to ensure the wealthy stay wealthy

18

GreedyNovel t1_iubg1vp wrote

He gets a pretty sweet deal to be sure. Most monarchs either were killed by the mob or their heirs were. Charles doesn't have to worry about that since he wields no real political power, and he knows it. Basically he leads the life of a pampered but irrelevant national symbol.

1

Mr_FlexDaddy t1_iu0hpd1 wrote

Get rid of the ridiculous tax breaks they have and elect new politicians. Otherwise everything is perfectly legal.

18

Antique_Steel t1_iu0ogjl wrote

TBH, we are trying. It seems like the whole of the UK wants a general election and to kick out the Eton traitors.

6

Zarimus t1_iu0atek wrote

We direct our outrage at the corporation exploiting tax loopholes, but really, we should be prosecuting the politicians that write these loopholes into law.

5

Indurum t1_iu0btq5 wrote

Well the corporations buy those politicians so it’s really equally both of their faults.

3

Finnra t1_iu0v9hf wrote

Fossil fuel companies are the drug dealers of the global economy. They will keep the world fixed and the addiction is destroying this living planet - the most precious thing in the known universe.

5

xSciFix t1_iu2lw9x wrote

Keep voting for Tories though, that'll help.

4

DepletedMitochondria t1_iu0m3sd wrote

Tax is a GLOBAL issue now, and has to have a global solution.

3

Amori_A_Splooge t1_iu19r5m wrote

And who is this global entity that is going to go around and collect everyone's global taxes?

11

Interesting_Total_98 t1_iu1v4tg wrote

Countries individually implementing taxation counts as a global solution, so your reply is pointless.

−3

Amori_A_Splooge t1_iu22kve wrote

Ah so it just continues to happen as it currently does. Got it. Thanks.

4

Interesting_Total_98 t1_iu2c26z wrote

You missed the point. They'd like to see individual countries tax corporations more.

2

GreedyNovel t1_iubgtuf wrote

Why? For example, Amazon used revenue to build a very effective logistics network the likes of which were never seen before. Successful companies do societally useful things.

Governments use revenue to bomb people who live somewhere else, or create propaganda, or whatever else serves the needs of the political leaders. It isn't always used for "the people", not by a long shot.

1

Interesting_Total_98 t1_iucmb6i wrote

Government spending mostly benefits its citizens, such as building the roads that companies to use to supply their operations. The money spent on bombs is a fraction of the budget.

0

GreedyNovel t1_iufy05t wrote

Corporations pay lots of tax money too. If you pick a specific corporation in a specific year, sure it's easy to find one that doesn't that year but over any given span of 5-10 years they pay up and their lawyers remind Congress about that loudly and often.

I sometimes find it funny how people accuse corporations of buying Senators to do their bidding, but then claim those same corporations aren't paying taxes. Aren't both activities ... taxes to buy influence?

1

hawklost t1_iu272x5 wrote

So problem solved. As each country taxes the profits from their company as they see fit. So companies are being taxed for global profits.

EDIT: oh look, someone who posts a response and immediately blocks a person, how mature

1

Talentless-Horton-T t1_iu0qee3 wrote

profits for me losses for thee

2

gopoohgo t1_iu1qkzr wrote

The oil majors lost billions the 1st half of 2020 and are only approaching break even.

Exxon still has ~$7 billion more in debt than pre pandemic.

−2

GreedyNovel t1_iu1omia wrote

Taxes are normally paid on net cash received during the year. Net income on a financial statement is not necessarily cash received, it's just what you legally earned during the year whether you were paid in 2022 or not. This is a topic covered in intermediate accounting.

For example, suppose you get paid every two weeks and your last paycheck this year falls on Friday, 12/23. You will work the last week of December and not receive payment for it until 2023.

If you were to prepare a "corporate" financial statement your net income would include that final week because you earned the money in 2022, but you don't pay tax on it for a full year because you didn't receive the money until later. It takes multiple years for the two measures of income to line up due to timing differences like this.

Lots of these alarmist clickbait titles completely ignore similar distinctions. Another one that gets people riled up is that professional sports leagues are nonprofits. Actually, they generally are - they collect tons of money and immediately turn around and pay it out to their member teams, leaving the league with just enough to run the front office and next to no profit if any at all. The teams are the ones that make the profit and pay the taxes, not the league.

2

picker998 t1_iu3wy3t wrote

Wherever you may be: Money talks, bullshit walks.

2

Sausage-and-chips t1_iu1h9dh wrote

“For every £1 businesses spent in the North Sea, they could reduce their taxes by 91p. It also does not cover profits made from forecourts, from refining or from trading shipments of oil and gas – areas where the company has made huge sums this year.”

Fuckin lol.

1

The_Yarichin_Bitch t1_iu2x2i9 wrote

And people still have the gall to blame consumers for not having more money because they EARNED that X% increase in profits!

1

Harju t1_iuihtav wrote

Shell is currently not a taxpayer in the UK, their extractive industry generates losses (2021 extractive industry reports. https://eiti.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/UK%20EITI%20Payments%20Report%202021%20Final%20-%208%20July%202022.pdf

They are spending more money in the UK than they are making so have no rings profits and EPL profits. So currently they have no advantage from the 91% investment allowance benefit. They will get the benefit only if they have sufficient taxable profits in 2023-2025.

TLDR - to say that they pay no taxes because of the 91% benefit on capex is misleading. If they are getting the full 91% benefit on the EPL then they have to be paying ~~40% on oil and gas profits before the EPL tax.

1

Gaff1515 t1_iu29jqf wrote

did tech companies pay windfall taxes when they had record profits from Covid lockdowns?

0

rmd0852 t1_iu0nr7i wrote

Write your congressmen. They're simply going by the tax code that's approved by the government

−3

Amori_A_Splooge t1_iu19tgg wrote

I don't think writing your congressman is going to fix the UK tax code.

8

rmd0852 t1_iu1ae7j wrote

Write your parliament grey wig guy

5