Shell boasts about 54% up on profits
Discussion
hollydog said:
Not a charity just robbers. That profit on any company is massive and wrong. Bearing in mind that is up 54% on last years profit.Thats some growth. How can any body thing is good apart from shell of corse. These amounts of profits are contributing factor to people loosing there jobs and pushing prices up on other items. That the world just can't afford at this economic time.
First off, please read your post over a couple of times and think about it. By the time you have sorted the spelling you might understand it all a little bit better.Things to consider include; How much investment was required to make that profit? How many people are employed and paid by Shell? How much more money will Shell invest in future developments now that they are showing a return to strong profits?
Stupid thread, naive viewpoint etc etc
But there still is a moral point to be made. Is it wrong for a company to make what could be deemed immense profits when so many 'common people' are stuck in the mire.
Ignore economic theory for a moment and just think about general morality and what 'feels right' on a human level.
I'd assume the argument is similar for CEOs getting paid many multiples of their employees' salaries. It might make sense in an economics textbook, but in the real world, where people live and breath, its not so rosy.
However, I am not a complete fool and am aware that even though a select few might make massive money, the rest of us will make more thanks to the actions of the select few.
However, when someone raises a question about whether it is morally right, it says a lot when they get shot down in flames straight away.
In my opinion its a question of valid importance. After all, life is about humans and what is best for humans, not for worshipping at the altar of economic theory.
If something makes economic sense, but doesn't make 'human' sense, should we continue with it?
But there still is a moral point to be made. Is it wrong for a company to make what could be deemed immense profits when so many 'common people' are stuck in the mire.
Ignore economic theory for a moment and just think about general morality and what 'feels right' on a human level.
I'd assume the argument is similar for CEOs getting paid many multiples of their employees' salaries. It might make sense in an economics textbook, but in the real world, where people live and breath, its not so rosy.
However, I am not a complete fool and am aware that even though a select few might make massive money, the rest of us will make more thanks to the actions of the select few.
However, when someone raises a question about whether it is morally right, it says a lot when they get shot down in flames straight away.
In my opinion its a question of valid importance. After all, life is about humans and what is best for humans, not for worshipping at the altar of economic theory.
If something makes economic sense, but doesn't make 'human' sense, should we continue with it?
Shay HTFC said:
If something makes economic sense, but doesn't make 'human' sense, should we continue with it?
Oooh - several bottles of red and a late night needed to thrash that one out - along with defining art and religion!I'm not so sure that you can separate the two like this. Like it or not, the need for money is a fundamental aspect to human life. That's how it is - and it is what it is.
For a company like Shell to make a profit to the level being discussed here requires much, much more than a few city suits making a few decent or lucky calls on investments. It requires a level of human endeavour beyond anything most of us can imagine, driven by that most human of traits; the need for progression - which generally requires energy - an awful lot of energy.
so there is a problem that Shell made c5% profit in Q4 and 6.2% for the full year?
Downstream is about 20-30% (depending on if you use ccs or not), and about half of downstream is chemicals, so at best, you're moaning about a profit level of c1% of revenue.
Their revenue is close to half a trillion dollars ffs.
And the Grauniad - so Shell article gets 'moral bankruptcy, £2m/hour, closed pension, predatory capitalism' but Apple 2011 profit story is 'record, hints at new iphone, delighted shareholders, thrilled'.
Downstream is about 20-30% (depending on if you use ccs or not), and about half of downstream is chemicals, so at best, you're moaning about a profit level of c1% of revenue.
Their revenue is close to half a trillion dollars ffs.
And the Grauniad - so Shell article gets 'moral bankruptcy, £2m/hour, closed pension, predatory capitalism' but Apple 2011 profit story is 'record, hints at new iphone, delighted shareholders, thrilled'.
Shay HTFC said:
Stupid thread, naive viewpoint etc etc
But there still is a moral point to be made. Is it wrong for a company to make what could be deemed immense profits when so many 'common people' are stuck in the mire.
Ignore economic theory for a moment and just think about general morality and what 'feels right' on a human level.
I'd assume the argument is similar for CEOs getting paid many multiples of their employees' salaries. It might make sense in an economics textbook, but in the real world, where people live and breath, its not so rosy.
However, I am not a complete fool and am aware that even though a select few might make massive money, the rest of us will make more thanks to the actions of the select few.
However, when someone raises a question about whether it is morally right, it says a lot when they get shot down in flames straight away.
In my opinion its a question of valid importance. After all, life is about humans and what is best for humans, not for worshipping at the altar of economic theory.
If something makes economic sense, but doesn't make 'human' sense, should we continue with it?
How wide does the mireometer spread, as there are people dying of malnutrition in Aftica right now. How dare they make a profit where somewhere in the world someone hasnt got something that I am sure they need. But there still is a moral point to be made. Is it wrong for a company to make what could be deemed immense profits when so many 'common people' are stuck in the mire.
Ignore economic theory for a moment and just think about general morality and what 'feels right' on a human level.
I'd assume the argument is similar for CEOs getting paid many multiples of their employees' salaries. It might make sense in an economics textbook, but in the real world, where people live and breath, its not so rosy.
However, I am not a complete fool and am aware that even though a select few might make massive money, the rest of us will make more thanks to the actions of the select few.
However, when someone raises a question about whether it is morally right, it says a lot when they get shot down in flames straight away.
In my opinion its a question of valid importance. After all, life is about humans and what is best for humans, not for worshipping at the altar of economic theory.
If something makes economic sense, but doesn't make 'human' sense, should we continue with it?
Dr Jekyll said:
Shay HTFC said:
If something makes economic sense, but doesn't make 'human' sense, should we continue with it?
Economic sense is just another way of saying it makes humans better off.edit: And with regards to Africa, fair point, but as long as there is inequality in the world then you could say the same thing. It doesn't take away from the opinion that having so much money being made by such a select few is maybe not the best economic policy in terms of 'morality'.
Edited by Shay HTFC on Thursday 2nd February 20:45
Here we go again, please read Shell's annual report before you jump up and down in your dungarees and sandals.
You will see how the revenue is made up in a diverse way, green energy, gas is a higher earner nice and clean, heavy oils a higher earner, products used in the development of plastic, pharmaceuticals, even detergent all come from the black stuff.
Well done to Shell, its good for the Global economy, countries like the UK (Shell's UK division will pay tax!!) and for pension funds etc etc.
Globally the company invests massive amounts, takes huge risks and alongside some suppliers develop some ground breaking technology.
As food for thought Shell operates a subsea field in the Gulf of Mexico, Perdio, the subsea trees are located in 9,250 feet of water.
You will see how the revenue is made up in a diverse way, green energy, gas is a higher earner nice and clean, heavy oils a higher earner, products used in the development of plastic, pharmaceuticals, even detergent all come from the black stuff.
Well done to Shell, its good for the Global economy, countries like the UK (Shell's UK division will pay tax!!) and for pension funds etc etc.
Globally the company invests massive amounts, takes huge risks and alongside some suppliers develop some ground breaking technology.
As food for thought Shell operates a subsea field in the Gulf of Mexico, Perdio, the subsea trees are located in 9,250 feet of water.
Shay HTFC said:
It makes the human race as a whole better off, but not necessarily each individual human.
edit: And with regards to Africa, fair point, but as long as there is inequality in the world then you could say the same thing. It doesn't take away from the opinion that having so much money being made by such a select few is maybe not the best economic policy in terms of 'morality'.
Shell's shareholders are hardly a 'few', select or otherwise. Secondly, what harm does it do for them to make a return on their investment? Just saying 'it's immoral' begs the question.edit: And with regards to Africa, fair point, but as long as there is inequality in the world then you could say the same thing. It doesn't take away from the opinion that having so much money being made by such a select few is maybe not the best economic policy in terms of 'morality'.
Shay HTFC said:
Stupid thread, naive viewpoint etc etc
But there still is a moral point to be made. Is it wrong for a company to make what could be deemed immense profits when so many 'common people' are stuck in the mire.
Ignore economic theory for a moment and just think about general morality and what 'feels right' on a human level.
It's profits that will drag us out of the mire, so yes it's not only ok for Shell to announce record profits, it's a very good thing. But there still is a moral point to be made. Is it wrong for a company to make what could be deemed immense profits when so many 'common people' are stuck in the mire.
Ignore economic theory for a moment and just think about general morality and what 'feels right' on a human level.
I don't see economic theory as being detached from humanity in the way you apparently do. Economic growth is good for people, economic decline is not.
If the CEO had turned up in a gold plated Rolls Royce, blown his nose on a £50 note and announced their strong performance from atop a human pyramid of poor people all chanting his name, as he slurped champagne and slipped in jokes about how many polar bears they'd killed, then I might think it was in rather poor taste. Simply announcing a healthy increase in profits though is a good thing.
thinfourth2 said:
scotal said:
thinfourth2 said:
Excellent
I can charge them more for some valves
Are you going to actually delvier the valves tf, or just invoice them and hope they don't notice?I can charge them more for some valves
Shay HTFC said:
Stupid thread, naive viewpoint etc etc
But there still is a moral point to be made. Is it wrong for a company to make what could be deemed immense profits when so many 'common people' are stuck in the mire.
Ignore economic theory for a moment and just think about general morality and what 'feels right' on a human level.
I'd assume the argument is similar for CEOs getting paid many multiples of their employees' salaries. It might make sense in an economics textbook, but in the real world, where people live and breath, its not so rosy.
However, I am not a complete fool and am aware that even though a select few might make massive money, the rest of us will make more thanks to the actions of the select few.
However, when someone raises a question about whether it is morally right, it says a lot when they get shot down in flames straight away.
In my opinion its a question of valid importance. After all, life is about humans and what is best for humans, not for worshipping at the altar of economic theory.
If something makes economic sense, but doesn't make 'human' sense, should we continue with it?
Trouble is, when I see all these people whinging about how tough it suddenly got in the last few years all I see are stupid, greedy sBut there still is a moral point to be made. Is it wrong for a company to make what could be deemed immense profits when so many 'common people' are stuck in the mire.
Ignore economic theory for a moment and just think about general morality and what 'feels right' on a human level.
I'd assume the argument is similar for CEOs getting paid many multiples of their employees' salaries. It might make sense in an economics textbook, but in the real world, where people live and breath, its not so rosy.
However, I am not a complete fool and am aware that even though a select few might make massive money, the rest of us will make more thanks to the actions of the select few.
However, when someone raises a question about whether it is morally right, it says a lot when they get shot down in flames straight away.
In my opinion its a question of valid importance. After all, life is about humans and what is best for humans, not for worshipping at the altar of economic theory.
If something makes economic sense, but doesn't make 'human' sense, should we continue with it?
ts who didn't put anything aside in the good times and worse, bought things they had no need of with other peoples money. I say f
k 'em. Natural selection. Wipe them out and free the space up for those who are genuinely struggling or disadvantaged. The key, is people who have started whinging in the last 2 years. They were clearly fun living on the hog during the boom.
Sorry for being so rude but I'm all out of patience with greedy little s
ts and seriously thick people who are swamping and drowning out the real people who were struggling before and getting it worse now. DJRC said:
Erm...but the actual cost of the stuff is cheap. They arent profiteering, because they only put a small margin of profit on each barrel, but they sell billions of them. The high cost of the stuff to punters comes from the tax loading on it. You cant really blame Shell for tax hiking the prices up by 70%.
I'm not always convinced of this argument tbh. Yes fuel tx is too high, but 70% of nothing is nothing! So the base price has a direct effect on the price after tax.Ever increasing profits from the energy suppliers is what happpens when it is all derugulated and "allowed" to price fix, by "competing" with each other...
Oh, and Shell's profits are of course, totally unaffected by whatever tax on goods is applied by each tax authority that they sell in.
Edited by s3fella on Friday 3rd February 21:30
s3fella said:
I'm not always convinced of this argument tbh. Yes fuel tx is too high, but 70% of nothing is nothing! So the base price has a direct effect on the price after tax.
Fuel duty is an amount, not a percentage. The VAT is a percentage but based on the duty as well as the base price. s3fella said:
I'm not always convinced of this argument tbh. Yes fuel tx is too high, but 70% of nothing is nothing! So the base price has a direct effect on the price after tax.
The current price is £1.34 a litre at the pump. That is the equivalent of £6.08 a gallon. 70% of £6.08 is not "nothing". It is £4.25.So, you are paying £4.25 tax for every gallon of petrol that you buy.
Don
--
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff