It's Time for a Windfall Profits Tax!

[scott]

Some Website (http://redstripedshirt.blogspot.com/)



It’s Time for a Windfall Profits Tax!

As oil and gas prices have risen steadily over the last 2 years (and sharply following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita), there has been grumbling from the American public and their elected leaders over the profits being made my companies who operate in these sectors. Recently, Senator Bryon Dorgan (D-ND) introduced The Windfall Profits Rebate Act of 2005 (http://dorgan.senate.gov/issues/economy/windfall/), which would impose a 50% excise tax on profits earned by companies from the sale of a barrel of oil for over $40.

I am going to ignore the simple facts that 1) a freely traded global market has dictated $40+ prices since the first half of 2004, high oil prices are not a recent phenomenon brought about by hurricanes, 2) the theoretical and empirical shortcomings of price controls ( which a windfall tax implicitly is) and 3) the basic principal of free market economics that periods of higher than normal profits are the result of supply/demand imbalances, and that higher than normal profits/prices are exactly what is required to bring supply and back into balance via increased investment and lower demand.

Ignoring these 3 things, I am going to go along with the notion that the profits earned by the companies supplying petroleum products to consumers are wrong, and that social justice demands a windfall tax.

But why stop at oil? If the profits earned by oil companies are an indication of evil business practice, I think we should go after all companies with large levels of profitability.

First, let’s take a look at a sample of oil companies and their relative profitability indicators.


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7309/1288/400/102705%20graph%201.jpg

Now let’s compare them to the same indicators for a handful of other company who design, manufacture or distribute popular goods.


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7309/1288/400/102705%20graph%202.jpg

Where is the outcry for a Windfall Tax on these companies, who on average have operated with margins three times those of oil companies? When you consider the fact that this has been an extremely profitable cycle for oil companies while steady yet rather tame for the rest of the economy – it further supports a Windfall Tax on these other companies. Oil companies are making more than they every have in any time in their history… and yet they still only make a third of what other companies rake in!

Meanwhile, while everyone thinks it’s shareholders of oil companies who are striking it right, the truth is that shareholders of these other companies see their stock valued relative to earnings at over 2 times that of oil companies. A dollar of earnings for an oil company is only worth $8.59 to the stock price, whereas a dollar of earnings to these other companies is worth $20.86.

If we are going to talk about Windfall Taxes, let’s not single out oil companies. Let’s also include those who allow us to Google up reviews about the latest Electronic Arts games to play on our Microsoft Xbox while listening to our Apple iPods while drinking a refreshing Coca-Cola to wash down our McDonalds Big Mac’s before we go out to buy a case of Budweiser paid for with our Bank of America debit card before we get thrown into jail for public intoxication and have to call our girlfriend’s to bail us out over a SBC telephone network.

It’s only fair.

[CharlieMac]

It's times like these that I'm not a fan of Bush at all. Frist seems to have the right idea right now. I used to think that even big oil cmpanies were at the mercy of OPEC, but after a 3 month profit of 10 fucking billion dollars......there's obviously a problem with gas prices.

[boutons]

no windfall profits tax.

Put a variable tax on gasoline that holds the retail price at $3.50, no matter what the oil barrel price is. As conservation pushes the price of oil down, govt pockets more money, and keeps the pressure on conservation efforts. ie, NO MORE CHEAP GAS.

[Nbadan]

Put a variable tax on gasoline that holds the retail price at $3.50, no matter what the oil barrel price is.

The market couldn't support it for long. We would go into a recession. Already gas prices are receding from record highs, but it may be too late, the country faces anemic growth at least through the first 6 months of 2006 based mostly on consumers spending less on other things as they sacrifice for gasoline and things will only get worse. Bet on it.

[scott]

I used to think that even big oil cmpanies were at the mercy of OPEC, but after a 3 month profit of 10 fucking billion dollars......there's obviously a problem with gas prices.

10 billion, 100 billion, 1 million... all numbers that are meaningless outside of context. The fact is that Exxon Mobil has had to employ more capital and carry more assets than any other company in the world to earn that 10 billion. If you want to take away the occasional 10 billion quarters from Exxon Mobil, they will just assume cancel their 20 billion projects.

[scott]

no windfall profits tax.

Put a variable tax on gasoline that holds the retail price at $3.50, no matter what the oil barrel price is. As conservation pushes the price of oil down, govt pockets more money, and keeps the pressure on conservation efforts. ie, NO MORE CHEAP GAS.

So your premise is that the Government is more effective than the free market at the distribution of capital? That is, as we say in the world of economics, ridiculous. Price controls, whether they are price floors (as you suggest) or price ceilings - are shown to be counter-productive.

[Yonivore]

So your premise is that the Government is more effective than the free market at the distribution of capital? That is, as we say in the world of economics, ridiculous. Price controls, whether they are price floors (as you suggest) or price ceilings - are shown to be counter-productive.
Would you agree the same applies in wages, scott?

[scott]

Would you agree the same applies in wages, scott?

Absolutely. A rise in the minimum wage is shown both theoretically and empirically to result in a rise in the unemployment rate.

[scott]

Maybe Forbes reads my blog? Or bouton's posts?

A small and gradual tax on gasoline prices may be effective, but not to the point where they jack prices up beyond of causing a recession.



Commentary
Hands Off The Windfall
Christopher Helman, 10.28.05, 6:47 AM ET

HOUSTON - A record earnings season for the oil industry is stoking increased grumbling from politicians, citizens and activists who want the U.S. government to levy a windfall profits tax on companies that are enjoying their highest profits ever. This week, Exxon Mobil announced third-quarter net income of $9.9 billion, up 75%. Royal Dutch Shell posted $9.2 billion, up 68%. BP advanced 27% to $5.3 billion. It's even better at smaller operators like Marathon Oil, where earnings more than trebled to $770 million.

In a sense, America should be happy to see those profits; they imply that America's energy supply system is efficient. If Big Oil wasn't making money in a time of record energy prices, then we'd really have a problem.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, N.Y.) doesn't see it that way. She introduced a bill this week that would levy $20 billion in annual taxes on oil companies to help subsidize energy costs of low-income households. Though the bill stands no chance of passage, it illustrates the terrifying delusion that politicians think they know better than captains of industry how to maintain cheap energy supplies for America. If put into practice, a bill like Clinton's would cause more harm than good. Giving $20 billion in free energy to low-income families would cause a huge spike in demand for oil and natural gas supplies that are already stretched tenuously thin--pushing prices up even further, for everybody.

On Thursday afternoon, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman denied Wall Street rumors that the White House was preparing to introduce its own oil tax proposal to the Hill, one that would include a tax of some $3 billion a year in low-income energy subsidies. More likely: A law that would require refiners to maintain a five-day regional reserve of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel--sufficient to maintain supplies in the face of disruptions like this summer's Gulf Coast hurricanes. Deutsche Bank (nyse: DB - news - people ) analyst Paul Sankey said in a research report Thursday that the cost to industry of managing such reserves could be $500 million a year.

And House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R, Ill.) earlier in the week urged oil companies to spend profits to build new refineries. "We expect oil companies to do their part to ease the pain," he said.

But what is their part? It's not as if Big Oil is squandering its cash. In the third quarter, Exxon Mobil (nyse: XOM - news - people ) invested $4.4 billion in capital and exploration projects--to ensure that it can maintain a steady supply of fuel to the world. The company also spent $6.8 billion on dividends and share buybacks--in effect giving profits back to shareholders so they can reinvest it wherever they see fit.

As for refineries, the industry spends billions of dollars a year to upgrade and expand existing plants. They don't build new ones because it's a bad use of capital. When mega-refiner Valero (nyse: VLO - news - people ) bought Premcor (nyse: PCO - news - people ) this year, it paid $8 billion for refineries that would cost at least $11 billion to build from scratch. Until the cost of building new is less than the cost of buying old assets, there's no incentive to build new refineries. If Congress thinks the U.S. needs to build some new ones, let Congress direct the Department of Energy to do so.

A windfall profits tax on the oil industry would be a disaster to America's long-term energy health. It would give companies big incentive to simply reduce investment in gas-guzzling America and instead focus on getting oil and gas to the fast growing populations of China and India. And what happens if and when the oil patch goes bust? Will taxpayers then subsidize Chevron's (nyse: CVX - news - people ) losses?

It's simply un-American to penalize a person or a company for acting on a bright idea. It's no secret that oil and gas are commodities vital to the continued operation of modern society. Oil companies just had the foresight to go out and look for the stuff.

If these windfalls are so morally reprehensible, we've missed many better opportunities to confiscate them. During the dot-com bubble six years ago, many billions in initial public offering proceeds for worthless dot-com startups could have been confiscated instead of wasted on elaborate parties and Aeron chairs.

And until recently, Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) was sitting on $40 billion in cash it got as a windfall from its monopoly position. That chunk of change could have financed a few months of war in Iraq.

And how about Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people )? Is that company really worth $100 billion? How about we get those guys to do one more equity financing and donate the proceeds to the U.S. Treasury?

Even better: If we're really serious about confiscating oil profits, why not send a few battalions of tax collectors to Saudi Arabia and Russia? Big oil exporters are reportedly on track to generate $800 billion in petrodollars this year. That's enough to make New Orleans look real nice.

Instead of stealing money from companies that earned it through foresight and stringent business practices, politicians need to break it to America that high oil prices are here to stay and enact some safer and more productive long-term solutions:

1. Pass legislation that mandates higher fuel efficiency standards.

2. Gradually raise gasoline taxes so that Americans are forced to come to terms with reality and start using less.

3. Enact tax rebates on fuel-efficient cars and offset the revenue loss with higher taxes on luxury SUVs.

Enjoy cheap energy while it lasts. Because as China and India continue to increase their already soaring petroleum demand, supply will only become more constrained and oil prices will continue to rise. And some day (maybe tomorrow, maybe 2050), global oil production will peak and begin its long decline. This is a finite resource; as easily accessible oil is tapped out, it will become more difficult and more expensive to get at what's left. With each passing year, mankind will have to learn to get by with less oil at higher prices. When that time comes, the industry's profit potential will dwarf what it is today.

Therein lies the perfect hedge for gas-guzzling Americans: Start investing in big oil stocks now, then over the next couple decades use the gains to outfit your roof with solar panels or make the payments on a hybrid car.

[scott]

Dr. John Merryfield, a prominent education and evironmental economist, had a brilliant plan for an emissions market for drivers. Essentially, we would have tradable emissions credits (of which there are a finite amount availabe) and the price of additional credits above our normal allocation would be determined by normal market processes. That way, those who pollute are the ones who pay for the negative externality of the pollution (based on the same model that industry uses to much success).

A similar model could work for gasoline taxes - a mechanism in place that allows for the trading of incremental gasoline supply so that the people who use more are the ones who bear the brunt of higher prices. It would be a radical approach to an impending gasoline crisis, but it would none the less be a free market approach.

[Yonivore]

Absolutely. A rise in the minimum wage is shown both theoretically and empirically to result in a rise in the unemployment rate.
Okay...just checking. I somehow thought you were a support of the minimum wage. My bad.

[Marcus Bryant]

Dr. John Merryfield, a prominent education and evironmental economist, had a brilliant plan for an emissions market for drivers. Essentially, we would have tradable emissions credits (of which there are a finite amount availabe) and the price of additional credits above our normal allocation would be determined by normal market processes. That way, those who pollute are the ones who pay for the negative externality of the pollution (based on the same model that industry uses to much success).


Sounds great in theory, but like a lot of economic ideas the problem lies in the implementation. How are the amount of credits required to be determined? By miles driven? Type of vehicle? How will this be enforced? Do we have to go to the DMV office to have our odometers checked?

I mean, it's one thing to have a rather limited number of producers trading emission credits. Quite another to set up such a program for the masses.




A similar model could work for gasoline taxes - a mechanism in place that allows for the trading of incremental gasoline supply so that the people who use more are the ones who bear the brunt of higher prices. It would be a radical approach to an impending gasoline crisis, but it would none the less be a free market approach.

This would be easier to implement at the pump.

[scott]

Sounds great in theory, but like a lot of economic ideas the problem lies in the implementation. How are the amount of credits required to be determined? By miles driven? Type of vehicle? How will this be enforced? Do we have to go to the DMV office to have our odometers checked?

I mean, it's one thing to have a rather limited number of producers trading emission credits. Quite another to set up such a program for the masses.

That is indeed the problem Merryfield acknowledges in his research. He envisions some type of radio transmittor that counts and reports. The number of credits you recieve would be standard (determined by sound statistical methods), and the person who drives the SUV or old beater without a muffler would end up paying more, because there cars are bigger pollutants.

The technology exists to make these things happens, it's just a matter of the capital being employed.


This would be easier to implement at the pump.

You could have a blue tooth device in the car that connects at the pump to a database which transmits the data.

Like just about everything, implementation is the bottleneck - but the technology exists, it's just the incentive (the fact that no system is place or even discussed outside of academic circles and internet message boards) isn't there.

[Nbadan]

So your premise is that the Government is more effective than the free market at the distribution of capital? That is, as we say in the world of economics, ridiculous. Price controls, whether they are price floors (as you suggest) or price ceilings - are shown to be counter-productive.

Scott, nice analysis, although I believe you are confusing effectiveness with efficiency. Whether the government has the money or it stays in the private sector the money is going to be distributed, especially given the current administrations deterrance to anything resembling a spending cut. The free market system would use the money more efficiently, get the most out of it's value, but it would get just as spent by either entity.

[Nbadan]

10 billion, 100 billion, 1 million... all numbers that are meaningless outside of context. The fact is that Exxon Mobil has had to employ more capital and carry more assets than any other company in the world to earn that 10 billion. If you want to take away the occasional 10 billion quarters from Exxon Mobil, they will just assume cancel their 20 billion projects.

Yes, but these profits come at a time when we have a very oil industry friendly administration at the helm and exorbant gas prices that are pinching consumers at the pump. The oil industry pumps billions of campaign dollars into the coffers of candidates from both parties, but mostly the party in charge. In return they get a hands-off government and what amounts to a corporate subidy dressed up as energy relief for the consumer - it's a joke.

[Marcus Bryant]

Scott, nice analysis, although I believe you are confusing effectiveness with efficiency. Whether the government has the money or it stays in the private sector the money is going to be distributed, especially given the current administrations deterrance to anything resembling a spending cut. The free market system would use the money more efficiently, get the most out of it's value, but it would get just as spent by either entity.


I think you have no clue as to what you are attempting to explain.

[Vashner]

I need to buy some exxon stocks...

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, but these profits come at a time when we have a very oil industry friendly administration at the helm and exorbant gas prices that are pinching consumers at the pump. The oil industry pumps billions of campaign dollars into the coffers of candidates from both parties, but mostly the party in charge. In return they get a hands-off government and what amounts to a corporate subidy dressed up as energy relief for the consumer - it's a joke.

Problem is, the consumers have plenty of incentive to change their consumption and there are plenty of drillers with a reason to get to work. These profits are temporary and while are robust, hardly represent an obscene return on capital.

[scott]

Yes, but these profits come at a time when we have a very oil industry friendly administration at the helm and exorbant gas prices that are pinching consumers at the pump. The oil industry pumps billions of campaign dollars into the coffers of candidates from both parties, but mostly the party in charge. In return they get a hands-off government and what amounts to a corporate subidy dressed up as energy relief for the consumer - it's a joke.

Dan, you know very well that the current petroleum industry environment hasn't suddenly developed over the last 5 years while Bush has been in office... it has been an inevitable part of a predictably cyclical industry. There was nothing to act as even a speed bump to demand, meanwhile all the cards were stacked against supply. Low margins made a lot of refineries shut their doors (no federal bail out money or subsidies... no one blinked about refineries shutting down because they were hemmoraging money), tighter environmental specs forced profitable refineries to invest in the means to meet those specs - squeezing out any capital that may have otherwise been used to build capacity.

It doesn't matter if it's Bush, any Democrat, or the CEO of Exxon himself sitting in the Oval Office - a period of high prices and profits was necessary. Now everyone is calling for refineries to invest more to increase supply, while simultaniously decrying the profits they will need to make these tremendous multi-billion dollar investments.

[Yonivore]

I need to buy some exxon stocks...
Too late.

[RandomGuy]

Absolutely. A rise in the minimum wage is shown both theoretically and empirically to result in a rise in the unemployment rate.

Really?

I have seen studies that point to lower unemployment in states that have higher minimum wages.

[scott]

Really?

I have seen studies that point to lower unemployment in states that have higher minimum wages.

State to state comparisons, in and of themselves, are meaningless. There are a number of variables that factor into any given population's employment rate, and comparing Low-Min-Wage State versus High-Min-Wage State alone doesn't control for those variables. All else equal, a higher minimum wage will result in less jobs. It's a quite simple economic model. Businesses demand labor at a given price, and there are people out there who are willing to supply that labor at a given price. Raise that price and the supply of labor increases, but the demand for that same labor decreases. In the way unemployment is measured, it's a double wammy - after the price floor (min wage) increase, you have more people included into the employment pool fighting for fewer jobs.

[Nbadan]

State to state comparisons, in and of themselves, are meaningless. There are a number of variables that factor into any given population's employment rate, and comparing Low-Min-Wage State versus High-Min-Wage State alone doesn't control for those variables. All else equal, a higher minimum wage will result in less jobs. It's a quite simple economic model. Businesses demand labor at a given price, and there are people out there who are willing to supply that labor at a given price. Raise that price and the supply of labor increases, but the demand for that same labor decreases. In the way unemployment is measured, it's a double wammy - after the price floor (min wage) increase, you have more people included into the employment pool fighting for fewer jobs.

Theoretically, this is true, that is unless the minimum wage was way to low in the first place which is I think is the point we are reaching at $5.50 per hour. Then a .50 or $1 raise would have minimal effect on employment because employers still need employees.

[Nbadan]

Dan, you know very well that the current petroleum industry environment hasn't suddenly developed over the last 5 years while Bush has been in office... it has been an inevitable part of a predictably cyclical industry. There was nothing to act as even a speed bump to demand, meanwhile all the cards were stacked against supply. Low margins made a lot of refineries shut their doors (no federal bail out money or subsidies... no one blinked about refineries shutting down because they were hemmoraging money), tighter environmental specs forced profitable refineries to invest in the means to meet those specs - squeezing out any capital that may have otherwise been used to build capacity.

It doesn't matter if it's Bush, any Democrat, or the CEO of Exxon himself sitting in the Oval Office - a period of high prices and profits was necessary. Now everyone is calling for refineries to invest more to increase supply, while simultaniously decrying the profits they will need to make these tremendous multi-billion dollar investments.

This would be absolutely true if petroleum wasn't such a national security and economic risk to the country which is controlled by 5 Oligarchies and a handful of small players. When making profits, the free market system only goes so far and when consumers feel they've had enough, you see Senate leaders calling for investigations into the inner-workings of oil suppliers and possible price gouging. Consumers decrying the power of the oil monopolies over politicians and the political system, and the need for more regulation.

[scott]

Theoretically, this is true, that is unless the minimum wage was way to low in the first place which is I think is the point we are reaching at $5.50 per hour. Then a .50 or $1 raise would have minimal effect on employment because employers still need employees.

Theoretically and empirically. You can make up any retarded qualifiers you like, but the evidence is published and it exists. I'll wait until Bush gaves into polls and pushes for a raise in the minimum wage and watch you flop over to the other side of the arguement... much like you have done...

[scott]

This would be absolutely true if petroleum wasn't such a national security and economic risk to the country which is controlled by 5 Oligarchies and a handful of small players. When making profits, the free market system only goes so far and when consumers feel they've had enough, you see Senate leaders calling for investigations into the inner-workings of oil suppliers and possible price gouging. Consumers decrying the power of the oil monopolies over politicians and the political system, and the need for more regulation.

...right here.

What you say would be true if "Oil Talking Points for Dummys... er Politicians" wasn't the source of this rant.


When making profits, the free market system only goes so far

I'm not even sure what you are trying to imply here... looks like just another empty jab on a free market system as a result of nothing more than pure irrationality.


and when consumers feel they've had enough, you see Senate leaders calling for investigations into the inner-workings of oil suppliers and possible price gouging.

As we've seen, consumers are rather ignorant to the basic workings of economics. They are willing to shell out a 31% profit margin to Bank of America (banking is a pretty basic need, and banks shutting down would have a much greater negative impact on our economy than Suadi Arabia shutting off the wells) - but cry about Marathon Oil's 3.24% profit margin, which is about 3 times the normal.

And of course the only people more dense on the subject of economics than everyday consumers are Politicians. They are calling for investigations? Wow, I would have never guessed that politicians would gave into the irrational whinings of their voter base to make it look like they actually 1) care 2) know what the hell it is they are investigating.

And that brings us to price-gouging - which is not an economic idea, but a politicial one. In a free market, there is no such thing as price-gouging. If the gas station down the street wanted to charge $100 a gallon and someone were willing to pay it, then an economic equilibrium has been reached, completely on its own. They only time when the notion of "price gouging" ever holds even a semblence of merit is when the supply of a good is so scarce that is only available from one supplier and it must be had in order to continue whatever it is the person demanding it needs to do... but even then, the price is determined by market forces - its just that the supplier has the leverage to price where marginal cost (supply curve) meets marginal revenue. But with maybe the exception of a dusty street corner in West Texas, retail gasoline is an extremely competitive business, and at the peak of Hurricane's Katrina and Rita stations were pricing at the pump below the NYMEX. Hardly sounds like "gouging" to me.


Consumers decrying the power of the oil monopolies over politicians and the political system, and the need for more regulation.

Yeah... because regulation certainly has worked well in the past...

You never cease to amaze with your ability to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

[RandomGuy]

State to state comparisons, in and of themselves, are meaningless. There are a number of variables that factor into any given population's employment rate, and comparing Low-Min-Wage State versus High-Min-Wage State alone doesn't control for those variables. All else equal, a higher minimum wage will result in less jobs. It's a quite simple economic model. Businesses demand labor at a given price, and there are people out there who are willing to supply that labor at a given price. Raise that price and the supply of labor increases, but the demand for that same labor decreases. In the way unemployment is measured, it's a double wammy - after the price floor (min wage) increase, you have more people included into the employment pool fighting for fewer jobs.

unless something is happening outside of your model that is not incorporated in your equations...

[RandomGuy]

Of course I say that slyly, because I think the equations are fairly correct.

What I think is that businesses sometimes forget some of Henry Ford's wisdom:

It is not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money. It is the customer who pays the wages.

There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.

My concern is that real wages have been stagnant and/or falling for quite some time, and the effect on our enconomy concerns me greatly.

The only thing that really raises wages in the long-term is education.

It all comes back to that one thing.

[Marcus Bryant]

Theoretically, this is true, that is unless the minimum wage was way to low in the first place which is I think is the point we are reaching at $5.50 per hour. Then a .50 or $1 raise would have minimal effect on employment because employers still need employees.


If the minimum wage is "too low" then it is below the market price for labor. That's actually a good thing because if it's above what would be the market price then fewer people are going to find employment or the employed will have less work.

I don't know why people believe that a minimum wage has no economic impact. I mean, if it didn't, why stop at $5.25 an hour or whatever?

Also, if you raise a price floor like the minimum wage then what will happen is that employers will drop those with the lower marginal products of labor, that is, young poor unskilled non-white kids. So those advocating an increase in the minimum wage are advocating a policy that at best does no harm and at worst, puts those who need a job the most out of a job.

The minimum wage is a fairy tale and yet, so many continue to believe...

[scott]

So those advocating an increase in the minimum wage are advocating a policy that at best does no harm and at worst, puts those who need a job the most out of a job.

More accurately said... the policy at best does no harm or no good...

[scott]

The only thing that really raises wages in the long-term is education.

If education is the proxy for increased productivity (which I wouldn't argue against), then you are absolutely correct. The free market will value the better educated (more productive) workers on its own, without an increase in the minimum wage.

[scott]

Where is the congressional investigation? Profits for banks have gone up while prices for bank products (known as interest rates) have gone up. BANKS ARE GOUGING!!!

Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco all have bloated profit margins... WHY ARE THEY GOUGING CONSUMERS?

AT&T made nearly 40% more profit than Valero Energy on almost half the revenue! AT&T is GOUGING CONSUMERS.

It's high time we get our Congressional leaders to call these price gougers up in front of Congress to answer for their outrageous profits!!! Oil companies got their day on the grill, now its time to go after the rest of the PRICE GOUGERS!!!

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7309/1288/1600/fortune50.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7309/1288/1600/fortune51-100.jpg

[Spurminator]

I knew those Johnson & Johnson assholes were raping me.

[Clandestino]

fuck, almost no one pays min wage anymore...

[Vashner]

Well as long as they put a lot of that money into exploration i'll be happy. Keep my injectors flowing with sweet juice and I am happy.