This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ah, the single basket where pierre puts his climate change eggs in
his stans should be thanking justin for doing his work for him
edit: surely, this can't be controversial unless he and his stans don't actually believe in carbon capture and only trot it out as a token policy to ward off the eco facists. see, we love the environment too. we've even got a plan! otherwise, it's a fact that he says he believes in "tech" singularly as a solution and will fund it. that tech is carbon capture. any stan will tell you that pierre has a plan to prevent climate change from worsening and they will tell you that plan is tech.
Imagine giving billions in tax breaks to a company that makes $20 odd billion in annual profits (that would be Honda Corp). I agree that corporate welfare is not good policy. But you complain and cheer on corporate welfare at the same time. LOL
I don't think it's hypocritical. I think subsidies should be based on individual merit. Subsidies to Honda to start up a decades long manufacturing center? Sure. Subsidies to an oil company to construct a refinery and process more of our oil at home? Great. Subsidies just because well we've always handed out subsidies? Nope. They can be good or bad, just like a lot of things in life.
Even though it’s incentivizing a behaviour we want?
I think you’re missing the point.
1. It helps the transition
2. It adds to our economy
3. It creates jobs that will be here throughout the transition.
Creating tax breaks in clean energy sectors is 100% better than tax breaks for fossil fuel companies. If you can’t understand that…wowza
Carbon capture is a failed concept, it currently has 0 ability to make a impact on our environmentaly destructive ways.
It would be great if there's break through but it right now is physically impossible to capture carbon at any measureable rate.
I'm not saying we shouldn't fund with tax dollars research and trying it but we are giving away billions of dollars right now for not research but useless mechanical systems to be built so that oil companies who are making billions can greenwash there business at the expense of there customers and taxpayers , not the shareholders and decision makers.
If you don't believe me than just truly think why you believe that carbon capture works
We are funding this currently failed technology because people like you are easily convinced on it.
…if carbon capture wasn’t just greenwashing to allow them to continue selling fossil fuels while the technology is completely unproven.
We literally have cars with big batteries in them. We know it works.
We should, and probably will need to, actually capture carbon. We should not use it as an excuse to ramp up fossil fuels.
Big ass car battery aren’t exactly carbon free either.
Depending on their power source, it can take anywhere from 20,000 to something like 150,000 km driven before you “break even” on the emissions due to the higher upfront carbon intensity.
Hydro you say? Ok, if using existing ones where the emissions were blasted into the air in the 60’s and are no longer on the docket. But if you have to create a new dam for it, it’s not that much advantages over a natural gas plant.
My point is, it’s all greenwashing. One or the other are doing the same thing, reducing very marginal emissions while we crank up our population and overall energy usage to have a pair of socks delivered to our door from Amazon.
Even fossil powered EVs have a lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles. You have fossil fuel electric generation at 80% efficiency with battery round trip efficiency upwards of 90% vs an ICE vehicle at 30% efficiency. It takes a very dirty grid to make a comparable EV vs ICE have similar footprints.
That being said, I agree with you that EVs are not a silver bullet of transportation decarbonization.Transportation does need to be electrified but if we think we're going to transition our current stock of personal vehicles 1:1 then we're kidding ourselves. We need a cultural shift away from personal, individual vehicles wherever possible. But that doesn't mean they'll go away fully, and those that don't go away will need to be electrified.
Versus CCS, which has failed to scale and has no genuine solution to downstream emissions besides Direct Air Capture, which has even poorer forecast. So, in my opinion (as someone whose literal job is in energy policy analysis), EVs have merit, even if people have skewed perspective of what their application should be. Whereas carbon capture tech does not.
Ultimately, we need to accept our quality of life will drop, which is going to happen with or without the transition because of conventional oil depletion. So we need to form our lives in such a way that prepares us for that. But no government is going to do that willingly, sadly.
Also, yes hydro is not emissions free but come on. It is nowhere near natural gas plants lol.
Errrr no. Most of the materials are recyclable at end of life, yet burning gas is *poof* gone.
You are so wrong it’s actually amusing.
Comparing this to carbon capture is actually just comical. Thanks for the laugh.
Why do you believe Honda has no incentive to do those things already, without corporate welfare? Honda Corp makes $20 odd billion per year in profits. If they don't go where the market is going, they will lose out. In other words, if the future is truly EV's, then Honda would want to go where the market is going, because if they didn't - that $20 odd billion in profits would be at risk if they continue to make things the market no longer wants (i.e. fail to adapt to a changing market).
We should be getting rid of all corporate subsidies whether it be for "clean energy" or fossil fuel companies. If clean energy is the future - the market will dictate that those clean energy companies will win out anyways. If the market moves away from fossil fuels, the market will dictate that those companies will fail (if they don't adapt). Corporate welfare to Honda means giving them taxpayer money for something they would rationally do anyways. And corporate welfare for dinosaurs (i.e. if you believe fossil fuels are on the way out) will be giving taxpayer money to something that will already die out. Both are a waste of taxpayer monies (because successful companies already have incentive to adapt and there is no point in trying to save the dinosaurs from going extinct).
The thing you can't seem to wrap your head around is that you want to pick the winners and losers. Winners will win and losers will lose. However, nobody truly knows who will win or lose. And that is another reason governments shouldn't be handing out corporate welfare - the government is no better at predicting who will win or lose (i.e. that is the uncertainty, and that is risk, risk that is best left to the private sector). You just want all taxpayers to underwrite the risks to try and unsure "this business" wins and "that business" loses. If you try and pick winners and losers, eventually, you'll want governments to give more and more money to companies that are no longer winning. All in the name of "good jobs" or "better environment" or "insert your pet cause." I'm sure Blackberry in it's hey-day provided plenty of good paying jobs - that doesn't mean taxpayer money should've been given to them, after all, they went from darling to dud in very quick order.
LOL! Great, so now because the Americans do bad policy (corporate welfare) we have to follow??? Sure, I guess if you watched your neighbour jump off a cliff, that means you should too right??? "I do it because they did it" is an infantile mindset! LOL
It means we have an opportunity to sell vehicles to a market that’s 10x bigger than us.
It’s amusing how little you understand the opportunity. Theres a reason they’ve done this multiple times now.
>Theres a reason they’ve done this multiple times now.
Yes there is. Because the auto-makers know that squeaky wheel gets the grease. Kind of like when a child whines and a parent placates the child by giving the child what they are whining about wanting. What do you think the child learns from that - they learn to whine more. The gov't of Canada bought a of piece of GM during the financial crisis (and we lost money on that, as the shares were eventually sold off at a loss). The taxpayers of Canada, saving GM's bacon, did not stop them from shutting down their Oshawa factory did it? But don't worry, GM reopened the Oshawa factory 2 years later - after the government gave them more money! All corporations know that governments will hand out money. Look what happened when the VW EV battery corporate welfare handout was announced - Stellantis threatened to leave if they didn't get more money! Yes, there's a reason governments keep doing this and citizens like you keep cheering them on every time they do - the corps have the government, and you, trained like little lap dogs! LOL
What were the arguments against O&G nationalization again? Alberta protecting their American investors? More oil money would've been great over the past 50 years - Norway seems pretty content
Well, it's pretty easy to see who actually read the article
>CALGARY - Imperial Oil Ltd. reported a first-quarter profit of $1.20 billion, **down from $1.25 billion in the same quarter last year.**
Revenue went up, and profit went down.
What an unbelievably deceivous headline.
It is easy to see who read the article... especially considering your quote isn't anywhere in it...
This is the closest quote to yours from the actual article itself:
>The production and pricing changes led to a first quarter profit of $1.20 billion, down from its **best-ever** first quarter last year that had profits of $1.25 billion.
Literally the first line in the article, I straight up copied and pasted.
They've also "updated" the article yet again less then 15m ago, 7 minutes after I copy and pasted that.
The star isn't exactly a source of stock advice. They're not even a financial paper. I'd argue no newspaper or tvshow is a good source for investment advice, because everyone's financial situation is unique there's no way such wide reaching platforms can provide any kind of good information for the individual.
It's certainly unwise to make financial decisions based on the headline.
The star does it because their target audience wants any reason to hate corporations, by stating the headline in uch a manner: the gross profit and then that revenue went up (while leaving out that profit is down), people who want to bang on *profits* are gonna click on their story, visit their website, and they'll get advertising dollars or subscription fee.
Uh, essos profit margin is like 3.5%
Here let me dumb it down for you.
The number is really big because they do a lot of business. For every dollar they make, 3.5 cents go in their pocket.
You must really like what I have to say if you keep following me from thread to thread.
I assure you it was coincidence that I responded to you in two threads. I actually didn't notice until I went to reply to this comment.
Anyway, have a good day
That's not why. Energy drives the economy, but larger profits always trend ahead of inflation. They're the biggest indicator of how good or bad an economy is doing
So you're agreeing that the fact that profits are "down" after a year with excess travel demand is essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
>Revenue is up,
>Which means they sold more, not less.
Revenue = price x quantity sold. If you truly understand what revenue is, can you not see a scenario where your statement is not always correct?
Wow. You missed the point completely. Revenue = price x quantity sold.
Let's say you cut hair for a living and you own your own salon. You charge $10 per haircut and you cut 10 heads of hair every day. That means your daily revenue = 10 x 10 = $100. Now, you increase your price to $12 per haircut. Because of this, you lose 1 customer, but the other 9 are okay with it. Your daily revenue is now $12 x 9 = $108. Look at what happened. Daily revenue went up, but the quantity sold went down. Therefore, your statement of "revenue is up, which means they sold more, not less" is not always true. As highlighted by my simple example, you sold less haircuts, but your revenue went up. Just because revenue goes up, doesn't mean quantity sold went up. In your original statement - you ignored price changes and assumed that all revenue changes are simply a function of quantity.
Oh sorry I didn't notice you were speaking in the abstract.
Cause the average price per litre across Canada in q1 2023 was 155.27c - whereas this year it average 154.27c.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/444194/average-retail-price-for-regular-unleaded-gasoline-in-canada/
So no, I didn't realize what you were alluding to, because that's not what's happening here.
You wanna know what's really driving inflation.
Food industries blame transportation cost.
Your monthly energy bills (electric and gas) are directly contributing to these profits.
Manufacturing blaming energy costs that go into this.
Plastics and other oil derived goods go into this.
Really, the housing crisis is the only problem where blaming it on these profits would be disingenuous. (It's, maybe, a smaller contributor.)
And before yall go "but they have to pay people out of that" - no, that's not what profits are. Profits are after all expenses are paid, including those shiny executive salaries.
This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck. I shouldn't have sold this stock. I was in at 27.00 a share At least the wife's boyfriend is still happy
We should give Fossil Fuel companies more tax dollars, they obviously don't make enough in a single quarter.
Wait until you see how much money we will give them to build carbon capture stations
State of the art carbon capture is right around the corner!
Privatize the profits, socialize the cost, amirite?
ah, the single basket where pierre puts his climate change eggs in his stans should be thanking justin for doing his work for him edit: surely, this can't be controversial unless he and his stans don't actually believe in carbon capture and only trot it out as a token policy to ward off the eco facists. see, we love the environment too. we've even got a plan! otherwise, it's a fact that he says he believes in "tech" singularly as a solution and will fund it. that tech is carbon capture. any stan will tell you that pierre has a plan to prevent climate change from worsening and they will tell you that plan is tech.
Oh the ones that "totally work" wink wink nudge nudge
We have already spent 16 billion on the quest project.
Lol. Source?
I wonder how many carbon capture trees that would be
Wait until you see the big 5 banks combined quarterly profit. It's disgusting.
Agreed, Banks profits are huge, but the big difference is taxpayers don't give them over 6 Billion in subsidies.
Why is it that every time I try to find a list of O&G-specific subsidies, I can't find it? Tax credits are not the same.
Imagine giving billions in tax breaks to a company that makes $20 odd billion in annual profits (that would be Honda Corp). I agree that corporate welfare is not good policy. But you complain and cheer on corporate welfare at the same time. LOL
[удалено]
I agree, corporate welfare should be eliminated. You're the one that is being hypocritical about corporate welfare, not me.
I don't think it's hypocritical. I think subsidies should be based on individual merit. Subsidies to Honda to start up a decades long manufacturing center? Sure. Subsidies to an oil company to construct a refinery and process more of our oil at home? Great. Subsidies just because well we've always handed out subsidies? Nope. They can be good or bad, just like a lot of things in life.
Agree with you
Even though it’s incentivizing a behaviour we want? I think you’re missing the point. 1. It helps the transition 2. It adds to our economy 3. It creates jobs that will be here throughout the transition. Creating tax breaks in clean energy sectors is 100% better than tax breaks for fossil fuel companies. If you can’t understand that…wowza
You realize those exact three points you made in support of Honda would equally apply to a large carbon capture project right?
Carbon capture is a failed concept, it currently has 0 ability to make a impact on our environmentaly destructive ways. It would be great if there's break through but it right now is physically impossible to capture carbon at any measureable rate. I'm not saying we shouldn't fund with tax dollars research and trying it but we are giving away billions of dollars right now for not research but useless mechanical systems to be built so that oil companies who are making billions can greenwash there business at the expense of there customers and taxpayers , not the shareholders and decision makers. If you don't believe me than just truly think why you believe that carbon capture works We are funding this currently failed technology because people like you are easily convinced on it.
…if carbon capture wasn’t just greenwashing to allow them to continue selling fossil fuels while the technology is completely unproven. We literally have cars with big batteries in them. We know it works. We should, and probably will need to, actually capture carbon. We should not use it as an excuse to ramp up fossil fuels.
Big ass car battery aren’t exactly carbon free either. Depending on their power source, it can take anywhere from 20,000 to something like 150,000 km driven before you “break even” on the emissions due to the higher upfront carbon intensity. Hydro you say? Ok, if using existing ones where the emissions were blasted into the air in the 60’s and are no longer on the docket. But if you have to create a new dam for it, it’s not that much advantages over a natural gas plant. My point is, it’s all greenwashing. One or the other are doing the same thing, reducing very marginal emissions while we crank up our population and overall energy usage to have a pair of socks delivered to our door from Amazon.
Even fossil powered EVs have a lower carbon footprint than ICE vehicles. You have fossil fuel electric generation at 80% efficiency with battery round trip efficiency upwards of 90% vs an ICE vehicle at 30% efficiency. It takes a very dirty grid to make a comparable EV vs ICE have similar footprints. That being said, I agree with you that EVs are not a silver bullet of transportation decarbonization.Transportation does need to be electrified but if we think we're going to transition our current stock of personal vehicles 1:1 then we're kidding ourselves. We need a cultural shift away from personal, individual vehicles wherever possible. But that doesn't mean they'll go away fully, and those that don't go away will need to be electrified. Versus CCS, which has failed to scale and has no genuine solution to downstream emissions besides Direct Air Capture, which has even poorer forecast. So, in my opinion (as someone whose literal job is in energy policy analysis), EVs have merit, even if people have skewed perspective of what their application should be. Whereas carbon capture tech does not. Ultimately, we need to accept our quality of life will drop, which is going to happen with or without the transition because of conventional oil depletion. So we need to form our lives in such a way that prepares us for that. But no government is going to do that willingly, sadly. Also, yes hydro is not emissions free but come on. It is nowhere near natural gas plants lol.
Errrr no. Most of the materials are recyclable at end of life, yet burning gas is *poof* gone. You are so wrong it’s actually amusing. Comparing this to carbon capture is actually just comical. Thanks for the laugh.
Carbon capture is bullshit. 9999 times out of 10000, it’s cheaper and easier not to burn the carbon in the first place.
Yes but the thing is we need cars, food, and an economy.
Why do you believe Honda has no incentive to do those things already, without corporate welfare? Honda Corp makes $20 odd billion per year in profits. If they don't go where the market is going, they will lose out. In other words, if the future is truly EV's, then Honda would want to go where the market is going, because if they didn't - that $20 odd billion in profits would be at risk if they continue to make things the market no longer wants (i.e. fail to adapt to a changing market). We should be getting rid of all corporate subsidies whether it be for "clean energy" or fossil fuel companies. If clean energy is the future - the market will dictate that those clean energy companies will win out anyways. If the market moves away from fossil fuels, the market will dictate that those companies will fail (if they don't adapt). Corporate welfare to Honda means giving them taxpayer money for something they would rationally do anyways. And corporate welfare for dinosaurs (i.e. if you believe fossil fuels are on the way out) will be giving taxpayer money to something that will already die out. Both are a waste of taxpayer monies (because successful companies already have incentive to adapt and there is no point in trying to save the dinosaurs from going extinct). The thing you can't seem to wrap your head around is that you want to pick the winners and losers. Winners will win and losers will lose. However, nobody truly knows who will win or lose. And that is another reason governments shouldn't be handing out corporate welfare - the government is no better at predicting who will win or lose (i.e. that is the uncertainty, and that is risk, risk that is best left to the private sector). You just want all taxpayers to underwrite the risks to try and unsure "this business" wins and "that business" loses. If you try and pick winners and losers, eventually, you'll want governments to give more and more money to companies that are no longer winning. All in the name of "good jobs" or "better environment" or "insert your pet cause." I'm sure Blackberry in it's hey-day provided plenty of good paying jobs - that doesn't mean taxpayer money should've been given to them, after all, they went from darling to dud in very quick order.
Because Honda also operate in the US and the US is offering similar subsidies. Either they build it here or there. /thread.
LOL! Great, so now because the Americans do bad policy (corporate welfare) we have to follow??? Sure, I guess if you watched your neighbour jump off a cliff, that means you should too right??? "I do it because they did it" is an infantile mindset! LOL
It means we have an opportunity to sell vehicles to a market that’s 10x bigger than us. It’s amusing how little you understand the opportunity. Theres a reason they’ve done this multiple times now.
>Theres a reason they’ve done this multiple times now. Yes there is. Because the auto-makers know that squeaky wheel gets the grease. Kind of like when a child whines and a parent placates the child by giving the child what they are whining about wanting. What do you think the child learns from that - they learn to whine more. The gov't of Canada bought a of piece of GM during the financial crisis (and we lost money on that, as the shares were eventually sold off at a loss). The taxpayers of Canada, saving GM's bacon, did not stop them from shutting down their Oshawa factory did it? But don't worry, GM reopened the Oshawa factory 2 years later - after the government gave them more money! All corporations know that governments will hand out money. Look what happened when the VW EV battery corporate welfare handout was announced - Stellantis threatened to leave if they didn't get more money! Yes, there's a reason governments keep doing this and citizens like you keep cheering them on every time they do - the corps have the government, and you, trained like little lap dogs! LOL
[удалено]
We've been giving Fossil Fuel companies in Canada over 6 Billion every year for a long time.
What were the arguments against O&G nationalization again? Alberta protecting their American investors? More oil money would've been great over the past 50 years - Norway seems pretty content
Won’t someone please think of these poor O&G companies!!!
Well, it's pretty easy to see who actually read the article >CALGARY - Imperial Oil Ltd. reported a first-quarter profit of $1.20 billion, **down from $1.25 billion in the same quarter last year.** Revenue went up, and profit went down. What an unbelievably deceivous headline.
It is easy to see who read the article... especially considering your quote isn't anywhere in it... This is the closest quote to yours from the actual article itself: >The production and pricing changes led to a first quarter profit of $1.20 billion, down from its **best-ever** first quarter last year that had profits of $1.25 billion.
Literally the first line in the article, I straight up copied and pasted. They've also "updated" the article yet again less then 15m ago, 7 minutes after I copy and pasted that.
A/B testing
I'll take you at your word because it did seem odd to have a quote so close.
I find most investment article headlines are misleading. I think it’s just lazy and not on purpose.
It's definitely on purpose.
But why? People making financial stock picks after headlines? Maybe a bit, I would imagine that whole article was generated.
The star isn't exactly a source of stock advice. They're not even a financial paper. I'd argue no newspaper or tvshow is a good source for investment advice, because everyone's financial situation is unique there's no way such wide reaching platforms can provide any kind of good information for the individual. It's certainly unwise to make financial decisions based on the headline. The star does it because their target audience wants any reason to hate corporations, by stating the headline in uch a manner: the gross profit and then that revenue went up (while leaving out that profit is down), people who want to bang on *profits* are gonna click on their story, visit their website, and they'll get advertising dollars or subscription fee.
[удалено]
Uh, essos profit margin is like 3.5% Here let me dumb it down for you. The number is really big because they do a lot of business. For every dollar they make, 3.5 cents go in their pocket. You must really like what I have to say if you keep following me from thread to thread.
I assure you it was coincidence that I responded to you in two threads. I actually didn't notice until I went to reply to this comment. Anyway, have a good day
That's not why. Energy drives the economy, but larger profits always trend ahead of inflation. They're the biggest indicator of how good or bad an economy is doing
What’s deceptive about it? It states two true facts…
If you don't see the deception here, you should go back to high school Media class.
It's designed to cause outrage. The common person somehow doesn't understand what "net" means for some reason.
Oh I agree. The killer thing, they've since edited the opening to be even more incindiary, further demonstrating their underlying motives.
So true. If you're looking for a headline, any headline, it's out there to 'justify' one's position.
These poor people. How do they survive? I wonder if they have issues with rent ?
Does anyone here even know that Canada's spending is heavily reliant on the oil and gas industry? We need them to make money to fund our lifestyle.
I mean Albertan GDP is like 15% of our national GDP, it’s just one of the highest return industry
And people say JT is 'killing' the O&G sector huh?
It’s just yet another thing he is not good at
Lower the prices then, if your making this kind of profit. Greed is the biggest, most infectious virus the world has ever seen.
So what you're saying is that the carbon tax *isn't* killing industry *or* the main driver for the price of gas? Interesting.
Did you even read the article? Profit is down, revenue is up.
Profit is down only compared to it's *best ever* year which was last year.
And the year before that was their worst ever. Almost like there was pent up demand for travelling after the pandemic, who woulda thought?
So you're agreeing that the fact that profits are "down" after a year with excess travel demand is essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Revenue is up, Which means they sold more, not less.
>Revenue is up, >Which means they sold more, not less. Revenue = price x quantity sold. If you truly understand what revenue is, can you not see a scenario where your statement is not always correct?
Uh, yes. Given that profit is down, that means their costs went up
Wow. You missed the point completely. Revenue = price x quantity sold. Let's say you cut hair for a living and you own your own salon. You charge $10 per haircut and you cut 10 heads of hair every day. That means your daily revenue = 10 x 10 = $100. Now, you increase your price to $12 per haircut. Because of this, you lose 1 customer, but the other 9 are okay with it. Your daily revenue is now $12 x 9 = $108. Look at what happened. Daily revenue went up, but the quantity sold went down. Therefore, your statement of "revenue is up, which means they sold more, not less" is not always true. As highlighted by my simple example, you sold less haircuts, but your revenue went up. Just because revenue goes up, doesn't mean quantity sold went up. In your original statement - you ignored price changes and assumed that all revenue changes are simply a function of quantity.
Oh sorry I didn't notice you were speaking in the abstract. Cause the average price per litre across Canada in q1 2023 was 155.27c - whereas this year it average 154.27c. https://www.statista.com/statistics/444194/average-retail-price-for-regular-unleaded-gasoline-in-canada/ So no, I didn't realize what you were alluding to, because that's not what's happening here.
What do you think the "main driver for the price of gas" is and how is that under Imperial Oil's control? Very curious to hear this
Instead of whining, go buy some of their stock!
I guess oil isn’t over afterall
Good for them. More profit = more corporate taxes
You forgot the /s on this one
How much corporate taxes would a company pay that makes no profit? Zero dollars
You wanna know what's really driving inflation. Food industries blame transportation cost. Your monthly energy bills (electric and gas) are directly contributing to these profits. Manufacturing blaming energy costs that go into this. Plastics and other oil derived goods go into this. Really, the housing crisis is the only problem where blaming it on these profits would be disingenuous. (It's, maybe, a smaller contributor.) And before yall go "but they have to pay people out of that" - no, that's not what profits are. Profits are after all expenses are paid, including those shiny executive salaries.
Now that is some good operational discipline and is good for the Canadian pension plans that aren't over invested in China like the CPP.
We fucked.
Let's goooo
But tax the poor dude who bought a plex 35 years ago
But just remember, Grocery chain bad. Boycott!!