Wal*Mart drops to #2

[atlrvr]

Let me share a little fact you obviously aren't aware of. Exxon mobil is an oil company. Their oil is sold to sevral other oil companies. It is not used exclusively at Exxon Gas Stations. So, no, we don't have a choice.

Wow, thanks, as a shareholder, that had somehow slipped my mind.....I thought they only sold gas at the local store here....you and mason's dad still seem to be missing the obvious fact. You are equating ExxonMobil with the entire gas industry while acknowledging that Wal-Mart is only one of many retailers....you can't argue it both ways.

If you look at the top 10 companies there are TWO other oil companies....there are NO other retailers.....it seems to me Exxon is less dominating. I would love for you to prove me wrong with some market share statistics.....I'll wait.

[CentralArkansas]

Oh that's what it is! Silly Nigeria!

Factoid: Nigeria is only ranked 12th in oil production, far behind the US or Russia or Mexico:

Country and 1999 rank/Estimated Reserves

(billion barrels, 2006)

Source Rank & Production

Early 2002 Rank & Production

2004

1. Saudi Arabia 267 billion bbl 2. 7.7 mb/d 2. 8.8 mb/d

2. Former Soviet Union 60 1. 8.6 mb/d 1. 9.1 mb/d

3. USA 21 3. 5.7 mb/d 3. 5.4 mb/d

4. Iran 132 4. 3.7 mb/d 4. 3.9 mb/d

5. China 18 7. 3.3 mb/d 6. 3.3 mb/d

6. Norway 8 6. 3.4 mb/d 7. 2.9 mb/d

7. Mexico 13 5. 3.6 mb/d 5. 3.8 mb/d

8. Venezuela 79 8. 2.8 mb/d 8. 2.7 mb/d

9. United Kingdom 4 10. 2.6 mb/d 13. 1.8 mb/d

10. Iraq 115 11. 2.4 mb/d 18. 1.5 mb/d

11. United Arab Emirates 98 12. 2.2 mb/d 10. 2.2 mb/d

12. Nigeria 36 13. 2.1 mb/d 9. 2.5 mb/d

Isn't it odd that the Republican-controlled Senate did not want to swear in oil executives under oath when they were asked to explain why they are having record profits?

"The Republicans will swear in baseball players but not oil execs."

You can watch the video here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/09.html#a5785

You would think that with our new oil reserves in a certain country, prices would be a little better. But that's a whole 'nother story altogether.

You can politicize the oil prices if you choose, but it's wrong to do so. Like I said, I am not a Bush-supporter.

Nigeria has a huge effect on the oil market. Scoff if you want, but doing so just shows that you don't wholly understand the world of oil-futures trading, which is certainly understandable (I work in this industry and it took years to totally grasp everything). Beyond what it produces today, Nigeria is projected to grow exponentially in oil production in the next several years. A possible disruption of this supply shakes the oil market. Beyond Nigeria, the situation in Iran is not helping. Their benevolent leader has threatened to cut-off their supply if UN sanctions are leveled. There was also the issue of truck-bombs targeting the largest oil-processing facility in Saudi Arabia - just imagine if they would have succeeded! Even though the attack failed, it shows that certain groups are targeting oil supply, which does nothing but make the price go up.

[CentralArkansas]

I really hope you are kidding or on some drugs: "it has nothing to do with him (Bush) that oil prices are high"- in fact it has almost everything to do with this terrible president and his backward admin. as to why oil prices are high, notice under other presidents you didn't see profits like this, and when other companies start making money and screwing the people the Gov. does something about it (ex. microsoft and AT&T), however, bush who by the way was donated millions of dollars by the oil companies during is campaign is nothing but watching his oil stocks rise...bush is too worried about his personal interest and not the national interest.

1) Trying to pin special interests on Bush is pretty out-there. I'm sure we could find the same if we checked every presidential candidate the last 100 years.

2) The government "did something about" AT&T and MSFT because they were monopolizing the market. MSFT included its internet explorer on its windows platform, which was determined to be unfair; AT&T was simply a behemoth with little competition. The oil market, on the other hand, despite some consolidation that could be a minor cause for concern, remains intensely competitive.

3) You are right we didn't see profits like this under other Presidents - but then again that could be said for just about every other President - earnings and revenue only get larger, due to a variety of factors including but not limited to inflation and growth.

Adjusted for inflation, oil-prices are not anything unusual. In fact, they are not even close to an all-time high. Though they are higher than they have been in recent history, they should be.

[johnnydr87]

You can politicize the oil prices if you choose, but it's wrong to do so. Like I said, I am not a Bush-supporter.

Oh please. Saying you're not a Bush supporter doesn't mean anything. Afterall, there are many, many Republicans nowadays who loathe Bush.

When Republicans in the Senate make sure that oil execs don't have to testify under oath, it seems a tad suspicious. Or, when Bush and Cheney have a deep history in the oil business, it seems suspicious. Or, when Bush denies global warming when over 90% of scientists agree it's fact, things seem suspicious. (I could go on about how NASA scientists have complained that Bush is stifling their speech on global warming.)

So what made oil-production so favorable during the Clinton era, when prices were 50-80% cheaper?

You're arguing nebulous generalities, I'm arguing specific facts.

Nigeria has a huge effect on the oil market. Scoff if you want, but doing so just shows that you don't wholly understand the world of oil-futures trading, which is certainly understandable (I work in this industry and it took years to totally grasp everything). Beyond what it produces today, Nigeria is projected to grow exponentially in oil production in the next several years. A possible disruption of this supply shakes the oil market. Beyond Nigeria, the situation in Iran is not helping. Their benevolent leader has threatened to cut-off their supply if UN sanctions are leveled. There was also the issue of truck-bombs targeting the largest oil-processing facility in Saudi Arabia - just imagine if they would have succeeded! Even though the attack failed, it shows that certain groups are targeting oil supply, which does nothing but make the price go up.

That's odd, does that mean terrorism has gotten worse under the Bush administration (explaining the prices) than under the Clinton administration?

[Mith242]

I wasn't aware of any grocery stores that own gas stations or even any that have on-site gas stations like Wal-Mart has with Murphy's. I guess I find it kind of ridiculous for a grocery store to have gift cards... who ever heard of using a gift card to just buy groceries? You may be thinking of a similar gas program with grocery stores but it's not quite the same as Wal-Marts gift card program.

Yeah I can't say I know that it works exactly like Wal-mart's but I do think they are something similar. For all I know they may have copied Wal-mart.

[tim2462]

Oh please. Saying you're not a Bush supporter doesn't mean anything. Afterall, there are many, many Republicans nowadays who loathe Bush.

When Republicans in the Senate make sure that oil execs don't have to testify under oath, it seems a tad suspicious. Or, when Bush and Cheney have a deep history in the oil business, it seems suspicious. Or, when Bush denies global warming when over 90% of scientists agree it's fact, things seem suspicious. (I could go on about how NASA scientists have complained that Bush is stifling their speech on global warming.)

So what made oil-production so favorable during the Clinton era, when prices were 50-80% cheaper?

You're arguing nebulous generalities, I'm arguing specific facts.

That's odd, does that mean terrorism has gotten worse under the Bush administration (explaining the prices) than under the Clinton administration?

I'm glad someone is pointing out the facts that are being ignored by so many people.

I can't believe the Bush administration has gotten away with all of this.

Bring on the democrat takeover of congress in November!

Bring on Hillary in 2008!

[CentralArkansas]

****For some reason I can't get the ''quote" tags to work, so I put johnny's words in bold. Sorry.****

Oh please. Saying you're not a Bush supporter doesn't mean anything. Afterall, there are many, many Republicans nowadays who loathe Bush.

It does mean something. It means I am not prone to allowing idealology get in the way of data.

When Republicans in the Senate make sure that oil execs don't have to testify under oath, it seems a tad suspicious.

Why should they have to testify at all? Because they ran their business too well? Because they made too much money?

I don't understand why they should be compelled to testify at all. There is absolutely no evidence of price-fixing in the oil-markets, and never will be. Unless, of course, you consider OPEC, but I won't get into all of the dynamics of the situation.

Or, when Bush and Cheney have a deep history in the oil business, it seems suspicious. Or, when Bush denies global warming when over 90% of scientists agree it's fact, things seem suspicious. (I could go on about how NASA scientists have complained that Bush is stifling their speech on global warming.)

I disagree strongly with Bush on global warming, but let's face it: Bush's position on global warming means little to the oil producers. Until there is free-market demand for cutting our oil consumption, there is no reason for them to be worried. That time has not yet come, and it doesn't look to be coming anytime soon. Even when America finally gets on the ball and does something about our thirst for oil, companies will still have the booming economies of China and India to sell.

So what made oil-production so favorable during the Clinton era, when prices were 50-80% cheaper?

I would tell you, but you wouldn't listen.

You're arguing nebulous generalities, I'm arguing specific facts.

If obvious references to terrorism, economic developments, etc., are "nebulous generalities" to you,then so be it. But in my world, conspiracy theories concerning oil executives not being sworn in, the president's connection to oil companies, etc., are "nebulous generalities."

I have argued many specific facts, but you don't choose to see them. You have argued nothing but baseless theories.

That's odd, does that mean terrorism has gotten worse under the Bush administration (explaining the prices) than under the Clinton administration?

Why are you trying to pin me? I'm not defending Bush, I'm defending the integrity of the oil markets. I have no qualms admitting the terrorism has increased under the Bush administration, and I have seen its effects on the oil markets time and time again.

[masons_dad1]

Wow, thanks, as a shareholder, that had somehow slipped my mind.....I thought they only sold gas at the local store here....you and mason's dad still seem to be missing the obvious fact. You are equating ExxonMobil with the entire gas industry while acknowledging that Wal-Mart is only one of many retailers....you can't argue it both ways.

If you look at the top 10 companies there are TWO other oil companies....there are NO other retailers.....it seems to me Exxon is less dominating. I would love for you to prove me wrong with some market share statistics.....I'll wait.

Sorry to keep you waiting...

Exxon

2005 Revenues: $339,938,000 (+25.5% over 2004)

2005 Profits: $36,130,000 (+42.6% over 2004)

Wal-Mart

2005 Revenues: $315,654,000 (+9.6% over 2004)

2005 Profits: $11,231,000 (+9.4% over 2004)

Chevron

2005 Revenues: $189,481,000,000 (+28.1 over 2004)

2005 Profits: $14,099,000,000 (+5.8% over 2004)

ConocoPhillips

2005 Revenues: $166,683,000,000 (+37% over 2004)

2005 Profits: $13,529,000,000 (+66.4% over 2004)

Valero Energy

2005 Revenues: $81,362,000,000 (+51% over 2004)

2005 Profits: $3,590,000,000 (+99% over 2004)

The Grand Prize goes to...

Giant Industries

2005 Revenues: $3,581,000,000 (+43% over 2004)

2005 Profits: $104,000,000 (+540% over 2004)

Gas prices went up and so did "Big Oils" profits, especially Exxon's. Notice that Wal-Mart's profits have remained the same for quite some time and Wal-Mart's profits are among the lowest in the industry. Wal-Mart seems more dominating because Wal-Mart has more stores than anyone else in the industry.

Another thing is competition. When prices go up for a pair of jeans at many stores, Wal-Mart "rolls back" the price of their jeans. When the price for gas goes up, ALL gas stations charge more at the pumps.

I can see why you're defending "Big Oil", you being a shareholder and all.

[johnnydr87]

Your quotes are in bold.

It does mean something. It means I am not prone to allowing idealology get in the way of data.

It means you don't support the current President of the United States, perhaps because of his enormous aggregation of folly---nothing more.

Why should they have to testify at all? Because they ran their business too well? Because they made too much money?

Who said they were being punished because "they rn their business too well?" They were testifying because gas prices were higher than ever, and constituents of those senators wanted to know why oil companies were making record oil profits---especially amid all the Katrina-gulf coast scare.

Is it not reasonable to call this matter into suspicion when your gas prices have risen 100%+ over the course of four years? ...especially when the Katrina was supposed to take such a huge hit on the oil companies?

Is it not odd that Republicans will make baseball players swear under oath but specifically deny requests to swear oil execs under oath?

I don't understand why they should be compelled to testify at all. There is absolutely no evidence of price-fixing in the oil-markets, and never will be.

Again, nebulous generalities. As long as you say it, it must be true.

I disagree strongly with Bush on global warming, but let's face it: Bush's position on global warming means little to the oil producers. Until there is free-market demand for cutting our oil consumption, there is no reason for them to be worried. That time has not yet come, and it doesn't look to be coming anytime soon. Even when America finally gets on the ball and does something about our thirst for oil, companies will still have the booming economies of China and India to sell.

Again, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. No offense or anything.

It means little to oil producers? I mean, you know, right?

I suggest you watch this report by NOW, of PBS, about the global warming debate. Oil companies have hired scientists to argue for their side. Basically, since the corporate scientists have very little evidence to go against the vast amount of evidence amassed by the other scientists on global warming, their duty is to "muddy" the debate to a point where it seems indistinguishable which side is correct (to the observers).

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatemediaint.html

Here's some news about ExxonMobil (this is not from the PBS website, but you can watch it in the NOW report):

A new investigation by Mother Jones magazine has revealed that ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming.

I would tell you, but you wouldn't listen.

Try me. It would be idiotic for me to completely deny that there are economic "market force" reasons for why prices are higher, but it would be idiotic for you to deny the current president and his policies have nothing to do with it. It's a combination of the two, not an exclusive situation for either scenario.

If obvious references to terrorism, economic developments, etc., are "nebulous generalities" to you,then so be it. "

Oh there's no doubt; you're speaking clear English. However, I said that you don't point to specific incidents or pieces of evidence; you use generalities.

I have argued many specific facts, but you don't choose to see them. You have argued nothing but baseless theories.

List 'em.

Fact: ExxonMobil hired scientists to combat perceptions of global warming.

Fact: Bush and Cheney were oilmen. (I could always go much deeper into this, if you want.)

Fact: Republicans made sure that oil executives didn't swear under oath in the Senate. Ask yourself, "Why?" Do you really need to keep shielding your eyes from the obvious answer?

Fact: The Bush administration stifled NASA scientists on global warming.

Quote from PBS about NASA stifling:

In January THE NEW YORK TIMES reported on NASA's top climate scientist James E. Hansen's contentions that his scientific work and opinions were being censored by government public affairs staff. An agency spokesman said government scientists are free to discuss their findings, but they are not allowed to make policy statements. This followed closely upon a long year of public scruitny of U.S. policy as the world turned its attention to climate change science and emissions treaties.

I'm not defending Bush, I'm defending the integrity of the oil markets.

CA, I'm going into business (and political science). I know what the basic function of a business is: make profits efficiently and expediently. That said, businesses often use disingenuous public relations campaigns to curb public opinion in their favor. It's an irrefutable fact of many businesses (but not all), and it would be naive to think otherwise.

Hiring "scientists" to muddy the global warming debate does not speak well for the "integrity of the oil markets."

You said a few posts back:

I work in this industry and it took years to totally grasp everything.

Is this a reason why you're defending the "integrity" of the industry?

[CentralArkansas]

Your quotes are in bold.

It means you don't support the current President of the United States, perhaps because of his enormous aggregation of folly---nothing more.

Once again, it means I'm not prone of letting my political beliefs cloud my judgement. If I was supporting Bush, my views could be called into question because of my politics.

Who said they were being punished because "they rn their business too well?" They were testifying because gas prices were higher than ever, and constituents of those senators wanted to know why oil companies were making record oil profits---especially amid all the Katrina-gulf coast scare.

Is it not reasonable to call this matter into suspicion when your gas prices have risen 100%+ over the course of four years? ...especially when the Katrina was supposed to take such a huge hit on the oil companies?

You don't know what you are talking about. No offense or anything.

Read a few books on the "oil futures markets," or hell - at least google it, and then come back and tell me why it's absurd to have oil execs testify regarding the price of oil.

Is it not odd that Republicans will make baseball players swear under oath but specifically deny requests to swear oil execs under oath?

Why are you so caught up on these baseball players? They have nothing to do with our discussion.

Once again, if you understood how the oil markets worked, you'd know it's odd to simply require the presence of oil execs in the Capitol, much less make them testify under oath.

Again, nebulous generalities. As long as you say it, it must be true.

You are the one arguing prices are fixed. The burden of proof is on you, bud, and all you continue to offer are "nebulous generalities" you are so in love with. 99% of economists agree that the oil markets aren't fixed, isn't that good enough for you? After all, you rely on the 90% of scientists that support global warming (as do I).

Again, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. No offense or anything.

This is humorous. It'd be frustrating, but I know what it's like to be your age and think I know it all. You don't even know how the futures markets work, yet you are accusing someone in the industry of not knowing what effects the price of oil.

It means little to oil producers? I mean, you know, right?

Yes, I do know.

I suggest you watch this report by NOW, of PBS, about the global warming debate. Oil companies have hired scientists to argue for their side. Basically, since the corporate scientists have very little evidence to go against the vast amount of evidence amassed by the other scientists on global warming, their duty is to "muddy" the debate to a point where it seems indistinguishable which side is correct (to the observers).

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/climatemediaint.html

Here's some news about ExxonMobil (this is not from the PBS website, but you can watch it in the NOW report):

I said BUSH'S opinion on global warming meant little. People don't listen to him about anything. Besides, the firestorm he created by suppressing the views of scientists has generated more publicity regarding the issue than anything else he could have done. I'd say he's done us a favor being so high handed on the issue.

Try me. It would be idiotic for me to completely deny that there are economic "market force" reasons for why prices are higher

You have already done so. I explained to you several reasons why the prices of oil have risen - extreme demand coming from China, an in increase in terrorism, unstable regimes in major oil exporting countries, etc.

, but it would be idiotic for you to deny the current president and his policies have nothing to do with it. It's a combination of the two, not an exclusive situation for either scenario.

No, it wouldn't. I can completely dismiss it. Anything OTHERWISE would be idiotic. It's fine to investigate it, but when no evidence whatsoever points to price-fixing, it's stupid to say "oh, well, execs haven't testified under oath and our president is a former oilman so they must be fixing the price."

But, lay it out there for me. Maybe YOU know something that Wall Street, Harvard economists, etc., don't know. Tell me how Bush and Cheney are manipulating the price of oil.

Oh there's no doubt; you're speaking clear English. However, I said that you don't point to specific incidents or pieces of evidence; you use generalities.

Generalities? How more specific can I get?

I pointed to an attack on a massive Saudi oil processing facility, growth in China, instability in Iran, problems in Nigeria - what else do you want?

List 'em.

Just did.

Fact: ExxonMobil hired scientists to combat perceptions of global warming.

This has what to do with Bush and Cheney manipulating the price of oil?

Fact: Bush and Cheney were oilmen. (I could always go much deeper into this, if you want.)

Yeah, and Ronald was a former actor, so he must have caused movie tickets to increase in price, right?

Fact: Republicans made sure that oil executives didn't swear under oath in the Senate. Ask yourself, "Why?" Do you really need to keep shielding your eyes from the obvious answer?

Look. The people in the Senate are smart. Damn smart. They knew they had nothign on the execs, and were just posturing and preening so they could tell their ignorant constituents they were looking into oil prices. Period.

Fact: The Bush administration stifled NASA scientists on global warming.

CA, I'm going into business (and political science). I know what the basic function of a business is: make profits efficiently and expediently. That said, businesses often use disingenuous public relations campaigns to curb public opinion in their favor. It's an irrefutable fact of many businesses (but not all), and it would be naive to think otherwise.

Buddy, just because you are going into a field does not mean you have credibility in that field. I see now you are not just indicting the oil markets, but the whole process of marketing. You are a regular Marx, aren't ya?

Hiring "scientists" to muddy the global warming debate does not speak well for the "integrity of the oil markets."

How so? Polls show that the majority of Americans believe global warming is happening, and it has done nothing to stem the demand for oil.

You said a few posts back:

I work in this industry and it took years to totally grasp everything.

Is this a reason why you're defending the "integrity" of the industry?

I'm defending it because it's fact. Nay not once has it ever been shown that the oil markets were manipulated, and I suspect it never will. There are reasons behind every movement in the price of oil.

Now, if you think Bush instituted policies for explosive growth in China, put in a tyrranical, mindless dictator in Iran, armed the rebels in Nigeria, etc., then maybe you have a point. Otherwise, you are just letting your hatred (however justified) get in the way of a litany of facts.

[johnnydr87]

I said BUSH'S opinion on global warming meant little. People don't listen to him about anything. Besides, the firestorm he created by suppressing the views of scientists has generated more publicity regarding the issue than anything else he could have done. I'd say he's done us a favor being so high handed on the issue.

I don't agree. I think many people see this now as a battle between God-hating scientists who create fear (through things like global warming), just because Bush has brought it to that level. This is not a conspiracy theory; I know several people who repeat Bush verbatim: "We need to rely on good science."

......imply globaly warming is bad science.

And like I said before, it is a common tactic to at the very least muddy the waters if you can't refute the opposition. The same thing happened when "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" made claims that Kerry never served (even though an enormous amount of eyewitnesses and evidence suggests otherwise). At the very least, it rendered his war record as ineffectual.

You have already done so. I explained to you several reasons why the prices of oil have risen - extreme demand coming from China, an in increase in terrorism, unstable regimes in major oil exporting countries, etc.

I understand that growth in countries such as China or unstable regimes in Iran can cause prices to rise. But the fact of the matter is that the same things were happening under Clinton. Yes, Iran did have fundamentalist religious clerics and all that jazz when Clinton was president. (We studied it in comparative gov' if that means anything.)

And what about Iraq? When Saddam was in power, shouldn't the oil prices have been higher? And now that he's gone, what gives...why is it not cheaper?

No, it wouldn't. I can completely dismiss it. Anything OTHERWISE would be idiotic. It's fine to investigate it, but when no evidence whatsoever points to price-fixing, it's stupid to say "oh, well, execs haven't testified under oath and our president is a former oilman so they must be fixing the price."

Wow. Just wow. Did I ever say they are quote "fixing the price?" Nope. I said "policy affects pricing."

Any questions?

But, lay it out there for me. Maybe YOU know something that Wall Street, Harvard economists, etc., don't know. Tell me how Bush and Cheney are manipulating the price of oil.

Two things:

1) You're telling me that all "Wall Street, Harvard economists" don't think Bush's policies have nothing to do with oil pricing. Riiight. I'm sure YOU know what they ALL believe.

2) Just as relaxing laws on pollution emittants from factories can indirectly help factories (it's cheaper to produce), so can other policies indirectly affect pricing. It's stupid to claim otherwise.

I pointed to an attack on a massive Saudi oil processing facility, growth in China, instability in Iran, problems in Nigeria - what else do you want?

China was growing vastly under Clinton. Iran has been unstable for decades. Nigeria is so far down the oil production list that they can be made up for by the other 11 countries ranked in front of them. Nigeria does not make oil prices rise 100-150%.

This has what to do with Bush and Cheney manipulating the price of oil?

It shows that Bush was toting the line of the oil industry when he said that global warming is not fact. Really, is it that hard for you to see....or do I need to break down every sentence so you can see the relationship?

Yeah, and Ronald was a former actor, so he must have caused movie tickets to increase in price, right?

Great. Because your example was so similar to what I was suggesting, wasn't it? It shows they (Bush and Cheney) are prone to bias, just as supporting Bush would show you're prone to bias when arguing about something like this. Didn't you just give me a lecture about this?

Look. The people in the Senate are smart. Damn smart. They knew they had nothign on the execs, and were just posturing and preening so they could tell their ignorant constituents they were looking into oil prices. Period.

Lobbying plays a huge part of politics. It's the truth. Look it up. Special interests, PACs, etc. can sway policy and elections, as history has shown over and over again. (ppsssst....Oil is a special interest.)

Buddy, just because you are going into a field does not mean you have credibility in that field. I see now you are not just indicting the oil markets, but the whole process of marketing. You are a regular Marx, aren't ya?

I'm saying I'm not ignorant to the matter. Are you denying that businesses employ psychology when dealing with public relations?

How so? Polls show that the majority of Americans believe global warming is happening, and it has done nothing to stem the demand for oil.

Oil is and will probably always be a necessary component of society (for making plastics or whatever in the future). However, even more emphasis has been placed on alternative energy because of global warming.

It's really simple: companies like ExxonMobil want to keep society dependent on fossil fuels as long as possible. It will guarantee profits.

I'm defending it because it's fact. Nay not once has it ever been shown that the oil markets were manipulated, and I suspect it never will. There are reasons behind every movement in the price of oil.

Like I said, I don't believe they are specifically manipulating prices. Policy affects pricing.

Now, if you think Bush instituted policies for explosive growth in China, put in a tyrranical, mindless dictator in Iran, armed the rebels in Nigeria, etc., then maybe you have a point. Otherwise, you are just letting your hatred (however justified) get in the way of a litany of facts.

The same things (save Nigerian rebels, perhaps) were true under Clinton. What gives?

Besides, who's to say that destablization isn't a strategy? Destablizing a region like Iraq would be very beneficial to those in the industry. I hear "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by an ex-CIA officer addresses many of these things. I only wish there was no possible way it could be true...but I'm not going to completely rule it out even if it may hurt.

Anyways, it's a well known fact that the United States instilled the Shah (religious leader of Iran) into power in the 1950s after one of their elected leaders (Mossadeq?) talked about nationalizing the oil industry. It's in our comparative government books.

edit:// Oh right. Forgot to address this:

Once again, it means I'm not prone of letting my political beliefs cloud my judgement. If I was supporting Bush, my views could be called into question because of my politics.

No it doesn't. It means you could still be Republican....you're just so appalled with his record that you don't like to claim him as one of your own. The two Republican club presidents here have done the same thing. It could mean you're a conservative Democrat. It could mean a lot of things. Don't over simplify and assume that saying, "Oh but I don't even like the guy!" will take you off the hook.

Am I biased? Yep. Aren't we all?

[Aporkalypse]

Boy is this thread a train wreck.

masonsdad - be careful, that kind of anti-GOP attitude will get you ostracized in Benton Co.

[masons_dad1]

Boy is this thread a train wreck.

masonsdad - be careful, that kind of anti-GOP attitude will get you ostracized in Benton Co.

What I say? I'm just a mouse compared to johnnydr87 and CentralArkansas. As long as I say nice things about Wal-Mart I'm safe.

[CentralArkansas]

Iran has been unstable for decades. Nigeria is so far down the oil production list that they can be made up for by the other 11 countries ranked in front of them.Nigeria does not make oil prices rise 100-150%.

The underlined portion shows you know nothing about the oil markets.

I've seen the price of oil jump two dollars on reports of fighting in Nigeria. It is a huge issue, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. I'm not going to continue this discussion, because typical to a teenage know-it-all, you won't accept anything that's presented to you. You are even telling me what I know regarding Wall Street's stance on oil pricing is wrong.

I'm not attacking you, we have all been where you are. You are a smart kid, it's evident. I'm just glad you are taking some kind of position at all.

[Aporkalypse]

What I say? I'm just a mouse compared to johnnydr87 and CentralArkansas. As long as I say nice things about Wal-Mart I'm safe.

Good answer, I think you'll be OK.

[masons_dad1]

Aw man, I was hoping to see more political debating here since I last looked. But politics aside, this thread is about Wal-Mart dropping to the #2 spot which IMO isn't a big deal. Unless another natural disaster strikes the Gulf Coast this year Wal-Mart will be back in the #1 spot. The truth is Exxon passed up Wal-Mart because of increased revenue. Period. Who cares where they got the increased revenue? I don't. Why? Because when the US finally starts using alternative energy and automobiles become less dependent on gasoline Exxon will become nothing more than a lubricant manufacturer.

[vbfl85]

Aw man, I was hoping to see more political debating here since I last looked. But politics aside, this thread is about Wal-Mart dropping to the #2 spot which IMO isn't a big deal. Unless another natural disaster strikes the Gulf Coast this year Wal-Mart will be back in the #1 spot. The truth is Exxon passed up Wal-Mart because of increased revenue. Period. Who cares where they got the increased revenue? I don't. Why? Because when the US finally starts using alternative energy and automobiles become less dependent on gasoline Exxon will become nothing more than a lubricant manufacturer.

You may be right about WM returning to #1 when gas prices come down. When will the gas prices come down is the big question, certainly not this year. It will take some time for alternative energy to make an impact. I would definetly expect ExxonMobile to remain #1 for awhile unless WM finds a new source of revenue. Another thing to keep in mind is that ExxonMobile is very capable of adapting to alternative energy sources and will do so when it becomes profitable.

To turn this around, Murphy Oil has been doing great. I believe they experienced the most growth of any Arkansas company this past year. They moved up 62 spots on the Fortune 1000 list to 193 and thats just in one year. They ranked 9th amongst oil companies.

[masons_dad1]

You may be right about WM returning to #1 when gas prices come down. When will the gas prices come down is the big question, certainly not this year. It will take some time for alternative energy to make an impact. I would definetly expect ExxonMobile to remain #1 for awhile unless WM finds a new source of revenue. Another thing to keep in mind is that ExxonMobile is very capable of adapting to alternative energy sources and will do so when it becomes profitable.

To turn this around, Murphy Oil has been doing great. I believe they experienced the most growth of any Arkansas company this past year. They moved up 62 spots on the Fortune 1000 list to 193 and thats just in one year. They ranked 9th amongst oil companies.

Wal-Mart is building over 200 stores in the US and a bunch (I don't know) in China. Their revenue will definitely increase. Another thing that will hurt all the oil companies is new federal requirements regarding minimum fuel economy for automobile classifications. The old law allowed trucks to be classified with cars and suv's, but the new law will require automobile manufacturers to classify trucks and suv's seperately from cars. This means the manufacturers will either have to make smaller, weaker trucks (yeah right) or make cars and suv's more fuel efficient so the trucks can stay big and strong.

[Aporkalypse]

To turn this around, Murphy Oil has been doing great. I believe they experienced the most growth of any Arkansas company this past year. They moved up 62 spots on the Fortune 1000 list to 193 and thats just in one year. They ranked 9th amongst oil companies.

Just a few years ago neither Murphy Oil nor Dillard's were in the Fortune 500. Both have really done well in ascending the ranks. Murphy Oil's contract with Wal-Mart helped but they have been very proactive in accruing new oil reserves including a couple of shrewd moves in Southeast Asia that pumped up their stock.

Hopefully, the new Alltel wireline spinoff and JB Hunt will be cracking the Fortune 500 in the next couple of years.