• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yet another economic accomplishment

Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
31
Reaction score
3
Exxon Mobil to invest $50 billion in US over 5 years, citing tax reform
www.cnbc.com



Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, on Monday said it plans to invest $50 billion in the United States over the next five years.

Darren Woods, chairman and CEO of Exxon, said in a blog post that the investment is partly due to recently passed corporate tax cuts. The announcement puts Exxon on the board with a number of other companies that have announced employee bonuses and investments following President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers' tax overhaul.

"These investments are underpinned by the unique strengths of our company and enhanced by the historic tax reform recently signed into law," Woods said in the blog post.

"These positive developments will mean more jobs and economic expansion across the United States in a myriad of industries."

As part of the investment, Exxon plans to increase production in the Permian basin, a shale oil region in western Texas and eastern New Mexico where the low cost of production has attracted drillers. Exxon said it will expand its operations, make improvements to infrastructure and construct manufacturing sites, activities that it expects will generate thousands of new jobs
 
Trump amazes me.
 
330 billion operating U.S. assets, 167 billion equity, 218 billion revenue w/ 8 billion net income, Chair and CEO now in the admin - all 2016 - and a tax cut explains a 10b/year investment?

:lamo
 
Exxon Mobil to invest $50 billion in US over 5 years, citing tax reform
www.cnbc.com



Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, on Monday said it plans to invest $50 billion in the United States over the next five years.

Darren Woods, chairman and CEO of Exxon, said in a blog post that the investment is partly due to recently passed corporate tax cuts. The announcement puts Exxon on the board with a number of other companies that have announced employee bonuses and investments following President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers' tax overhaul.

"These investments are underpinned by the unique strengths of our company and enhanced by the historic tax reform recently signed into law," Woods said in the blog post.

"These positive developments will mean more jobs and economic expansion across the United States in a myriad of industries."

As part of the investment, Exxon plans to increase production in the Permian basin, a shale oil region in western Texas and eastern New Mexico where the low cost of production has attracted drillers. Exxon said it will expand its operations, make improvements to infrastructure and construct manufacturing sites, activities that it expects will generate thousands of new jobs

As long as the left sees these companies making one dollar extra off tax reform they will find a reason to deny reality.
 
Exxon Mobil to invest $50 billion in US over 5 years, citing tax reform
Stock Markets, Business News, Financials, Earnings - CNBC

Corporations have more money, they'll invest more. But now we'll see if supply side economics works. It almost always fails.

Let's say you have a supermarket in a small town. You have millions to give away to stimulate the economy. Should you give it to the people so they can buy more or should you give it to the supermarket owner so he can build a bigger supermarket?

If people don't have extra money (untapped demand) they won't buy more no matter how many supermarkets you build. But if you give them more money, they'll buy more groceries but only if they want more groceries.

If building a bigger supermarket won't make them more money, they'll spend the money on automation to lower their costs and actually reduce employment.

Also, this is not magic money from the magic money tree. The government has to borrow the money they gave away and hope that the economy will grow enough to make up the difference. If it doesn't we just have more debt and maybe another lower of our credit rating. Maybe government has to reduce spending which means layoffs. If we have a recession, because these boom and bust recessions are cyclical, then it all falls apart.

It's not simple like you think. It will be years before we see the result of this tax giveaway.
 
Corporations have more money, they'll invest more. But now we'll see if supply side economics works. It almost always fails.

Let's say you have a supermarket in a small town. You have millions to give away to stimulate the economy. Should you give it to the people so they can buy more or should you give it to the supermarket owner so he can build a bigger supermarket?

If people don't have extra money (untapped demand) they won't buy more no matter how many supermarkets you build. But if you give them more money, they'll buy more groceries but only if they want more groceries.

If building a bigger supermarket won't make them more money, they'll spend the money on automation to lower their costs and actually reduce employment.

Also, this is not magic money from the magic money tree. The government has to borrow the money they gave away and hope that the economy will grow enough to make up the difference. If it doesn't we just have more debt and maybe another lower of our credit rating. Maybe government has to reduce spending which means layoffs. If we have a recession, because these boom and bust recessions are cyclical, then it all falls apart.

It's not simple like you think. It will be years before we see the result of this tax giveaway.

Trickle up has always failed.
 
Trickle up has always failed.

No oil company will invest in production in the US unless the market price of dictates it to be financially viable. Just a few years ago, the shale oil production boom dried up along with thousands of jobs and some towns. Because production outpaced consumption. So those of you cheering for oil company investment in the US are actually cheering for higher gasoline prices. But maybe they are building big buildings and hiring security guards for all that cash.
 
Trickle up has always failed.

Just the opposite. When people have more money they spend more and businesses do better. That's a proven fact.

Trickle down is something rich con artists made up.

I'll just say that supply-side economics can work certain situations. Developing countries are a perfect example. Building more factories allows them to export more goods and hire more workers. Here the wealth will trickle down. But that's because the people buying the goods live elsewhere and have money. There is untapped demand.
 
Just the opposite. When people have more money they spend more and businesses do better. That's a proven fact.

Well, thanks for being a supporter of tax reform. Nice to have you on board.
 
When people have more money they spend more and businesses do better. That's a proven fact.
It's those businesses that put the money in those people's pockets. Less money for corporations? Less money to pay out to employees. Government doesn't sign the paychecks for those companies.
 
Well, thanks for being a supporter of tax reform. Nice to have you on board.

Again, nothing is that simple. If taxes are too low, government may curtail things like infrastructure spending which in turn hurts the economy. Everything is interconnected.

The rational thing to do is to cut spending and THEN cut taxes. It makes no sense to cut taxes first when you're already in the red.

But it's easy to cut taxes. Everyone loves it. It's candy tossed out to children. Cutting spending is hard. Are you OK with drastic cuts to military spending? Everyone has things they don't want to see cut. Cutting is hard. Tax giveaways are easy.

Trump is moving us towards out of control deficits. Once you cut taxes it's almost impossible to raise them again.
 
Again, nothing is that simple. If taxes are too low, government may curtail things like infrastructure spending which in turn hurts the economy. Everything is interconnected.

The rational thing to do is to cut spending and THEN cut taxes. It makes no sense to cut taxes first when you're already in the red.

But it's easy to cut taxes. Everyone loves it. It's candy tossed out to children. Cutting spending is hard. Are you OK with drastic cuts to military spending? Everyone has things they don't want to see cut. Cutting is hard. Tax giveaways are easy.

Trump is moving us towards out of control deficits. Once you cut taxes it's almost impossible to raise them again.

Backtracking already because your uber partisan left wing propaganda talking points have been challenged?
 
Back
Top Bottom