Fallible
Due to "technical difficulties", Leo loses a recording of an interview with Bill McKibben. Randall Morton of the Progressive Forum drops by as a guest and they both examine human fallibility. Leo also delves into Thomas Friedman’s latest Op-Ed, where Friedman rails against our Nation's absurd energy policy. Finally, we take your calls, during which Leo takes a caller to task who claims liberals caused our energy problems... Leo cheats a little in the discussion by bringing up facts.
READ: Thomas Friedman's Dumb as We Wanna Be VISIT: Bill McKibben's Web Page
LEO GOLD
2 Comments
10 References
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
References (10)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
Response: michael kors outlet storeright say,michael kors outlet store The warmer that you are, the michael kors outlet store harder brown your ray ban replica pink has,ray ban replica, the better. Finally Suede used his red/white satin fabric by cutting it up into small strips and weaving it perfectly into a mixed ... -
Response: Cheap Nike Air MaxIt's been a period since the discharge of Nike LeBron 9. There Air Max Uomo are now in the market different colorway of LeBron 9, Air Max Donna Air Max Uomo, and this sneaker has enjoyed a popularity. There is not any denying that LeBron Footwear is always the biggest and ...
-
Response: Nike Air Max 1Each one all look into making a bargain with the sellers. Air Max Command At a time increasing di cheap nike air max 90 fferent circumstance of economy,Air Max Command, everyone are looking for way help to make our money to consume a extended period. There is certainly for us to ...
-
Response: ironfish Joseph ChouThe New Capital Show - Leo Gold - Talk Radio - Home - Fallible
-
Response: aroma rice cookerThe New Capital Show - Leo Gold - Talk Radio - Home - Fallible
-
Response: diadora soccer cleatsThe New Capital Show - Leo Gold - Talk Radio - Home - Fallible
-
Response: Melissa and Doug PianoThe New Capital Show - Leo Gold - Talk Radio - Home - Fallible
-
Response: how to make your hair thickerThe New Capital Show - Leo Gold - Talk Radio - Home - Fallible
-
Response: Ear Force PX5The New Capital Show - Leo Gold - Talk Radio - Home - Fallible
-
Response: rebelmouse.ComThe New Capital Show - Leo Gold - Talk Radio - Home - Fallible
Copyright © 2006, New Capital Productions. All rights reserved. The New Capital Show and NewCapitalShow.com are trademarks of New Capital Productions.
Reader Comments (2)
According to the May 2008 issue of Fortune magazine, ExxonMobil made $40.6 Billion profit in 2007 (#1 on the Profits list). This doesn’t bother me in the least because Fortune also reports that ExxonMobil has a market value of $455 Billion (#1 in Market Value). To me, this means that they made a gross return of 8.9% (Profits to Market Cap). If I had an IRA worth $100,000 and made $8900 on that investment (profit) in a year, I may be justified in firing my money manager when to the best of my recollection the stock market has returned on average 11 or 12% every year for decades. I then looked for ExxonMobil’s name on the other lists compiled by Fortune: Return on revenues, Return on shareholder’s equity, Revenues per dollar of assets etc. and did not find ExxonMobil’s on any of them. So to me, profits…even big profits don’t automatically mean bad, obscene or windfall.
What about Crown Holdings return on shareholder’s equity of 3520 (2007 profits as a % equity)? What do you think of Mosaics Total Return to Shareholder’s for 2007 of 341.7%, or the fact that Apple has had an annual rate of 50.7% (Total Return to Shareholder’s) for the last 10 years? If I have cause for concern it may be these numbers rather than ExxonMobil’s profit of $40 Billion. Bottom line for me probably what % of taxes on profits are these various companies paying…that’s a list I would like to see.
I also understand your point that the profits that companies make do not reflect the true or full economic costs to society….meaning that ExxonMobil should take a portion of their profits or more likely increase prices and use those monies to reduce pollution for example. It’s too bad our leaders don’t have enough of a spine to implement an “environment tax” on a gallon of gas to the point that people will start buying smaller and greener cars or start using mass transit, car or van pools. And it’s way too bad that our politicians would rather spend trillions of dollars on war (to ironically ensure our way of life) than on conservation and alternative energy etc. I’m convinced that American conservation and technology spurred on by environmental taxes would have kept OPEC’s power in check if implemented after the Arab embargo of 1974. But, politicians who raise taxes don’t get elected or re-elected, so maybe the enemy isn’t ExxonMobil but rather the man in the mirror. ExxonMobil is just doing a good job providing exactly what we want.
Thanks for your lengthy note. I think you and I are in violent agreement. I don't recall being outraged about XOM's profits, more like amazed at the magnitude. I agree that major oil's return on capital is generally mediocre. For that reason, I think they might find a faster growing business with better margins in alternative energy. But XOM shows no inclination to make such investments. Yet.
Leo Gold