comment: >
  
  All bark, no bite.
context: Maybe cut their subsidies? >
  
  Theyll just raise prices. Its not like there is an alternative for 100% of Americans.
  Honestly, and I am going to get a lot of shit for this, but threaten to nationalize them. $0 in profit compared to a bit less than $54 billion may put the fear of god into them. >
  
  We have a government because we'd rather things like the military or police not be owned by someone like Musk.  Maybe it's time to consider energy production to be one of those. >
  
  Seems to me that if there is an industry that 100% of a population relies on, then there is merit of having a federal option. See: energy, healthcare, banking, etc.
  I have no say that my gas company just raised my rates 30% YOY, and I have no alternatives to choose from. This is not capitalism. >
  
  in fact, it IS capitalism. >
  
  Monopoly is an eventuality of Capitalism >
  
  Exactly. people keep acting surprised by the consolidation and greed and control and monopolization like it's some freak occurrence. >
  
  So it's a hostage situation, the oil companies are demanding lower taxes to increase production. Currently pay the effective rate of 18.5% on federal lands and an overall tax rate of 19.6%. With this tax rate they are still able to record historic profits. >
  
  Screw the hostage situation. If anything INCREASE their taxes and if they want to complain, the US can nationalize it and force their profits to fund high speed interstate rail >
  
  A man of many words and little knowledge. >
  
  A man too dumb to realize he’s talking about himself >
  
  Likewise. >
  
  Conservatives say price gouging during a pandemic is MAGA. >
  
  That's funny, economist say price gouging during a pandemic is "inflation".
  ​
  It's almost like both groups are just greedy assholes rationalizing greed.  But I'm sure there are other reasons to devote your life to the study of money using bad math and pretend science.
  ​
  Here is a hint economist: math and science don't allow "externalities".  Causality is determined by all the variables so you can't just ignore the inconvenient ones and then pretend your work is anything but useless propaganda.
  ​
  And no, "we're too stupid to account for it" isn't a valid excuse either.  If NASA was as stupid as economists, they would have just ignored gravity when trying to get a man to the moon, would have made the numbers much easier. >
  
  Well put. I wish more people got how much of a sham most economists are. >
  
  I mean the first thing you learn in econ is that it’s super imperfect and there’s new stuff added to the field every few years that explains more variables. >
  
  Gary Stevenson said it best: there are two tiers of economists, the first that works for anything public like the government and the media, those get to blather on about how economics are complicated and you can't just tax the rich or else. They make a decent salary but need to willfully suppress (or lie about) any knowledge they have of what's really going on.
  The second works behind closed doors and do not ever get to speak of the kinds of loopholes and outright fraud they do to enrich their employer. They make six digit salaries, which is only a fraction of their worth still.
  The system is rigged in favor of the rich, and it shows. >
  
  I can't stand economics. It's all bullshit made to make us think that these things are just the complicated way things are and not just manipulations by those with power to keep themselves powerful. 
  I fucking love math, I teach high school math, but I do not respect economics and consider it a fabrication of mankind. Geometry, algebra, physics, biology, all of that is rooted in nature. It exists whether we like it or not. It is beautiful. Economics is an trash. I see a purpose to it. But, like most things people develop, it has been corrupted. >
  
  You might be right. They claim to know a lot but at the end of the day it's all ooops poopsy and mistakes were made and we'll do better next time while fucking up millions of lives in the process. 
  There are however diverse economic thoughts and it is an interesting question to think whether the economic advice relied upon by policy makers is dispensed by experts who are genuinely interested in providing sound advice. 
  At this time, I suspect that economists connected to policy are bought and paid for by the rich same as the politicians and provide advisory expertise to bolster the kind of catering to the rich everyone else is involved with. 
  We got to see economic failures of pro-austerity advice yet the economists in question were elevated to new positions of power. I believe one of them has been recently promoted to a prestigious IMF executive position. Those policies were pursued by policy makers and legislators for years as if they resulted in economic benefits despite the fact that they failed us all. They did benefit the rich though! >
  
  oh they blasted them did they? i'm sure that will teach them a lesson.... >
  
  They were absolutely SLAMMED. >
  
  I’m just waiting for Exxon to “clap back” >
  
  The conservatives blamed Biden for the gas prices. Are they going to blame him for the massive profits too? >
  
  "That's smart business" >
  
  I mean, it is, but it's also fucked up. >
  
  Politics is just one big ass blasting >
  
  Where the people are getting the ass blasting. Not the companies or politicians. >
  
  Any profit in the billions should be taxed at over 50%. 
  This should not be a controversial opinion. >
  
  Meh, after someone gets to $1B they should get a huge government funded party declaring that they won capitalism, then everything they get beyond that is taxed at like 99%. >
  
  1% of 1B is still 10mil. Not bad at all actually haha >
  
  Exactly they'll still make more in a year than most in their entire life, might as well put some of that to civilization's benefit. >
  
  “Conservatives” would argue that this money would do more good in the hands of benevolent patricians or paternalistic benefactors. >
  
  That's working out really well in Russia >
  
  But blame joe for inflation
  /s >
  
  If Biden is gonna get blamed for the gas prices then he should at least get credit for record corporate profits >
  
  The GOP consistently control the narrative around the economy and the GOP of course will not concede anything positive could have come from a Democrat.
  If corporate profits are up, it is only because of the economic policies of the GOP and those profits are up in-spite of the Democrats. >
  
  How about less "blasting" and more "taxing"? >
  
  Considering oil has its deadline in the future, how about reducing consumption nationally? .. Maybe finding other avenues of energy? OR we bleed out and make what we can without preparing new infrastructure for when oil isn't. >
  
  Tax the ever loving hell outta them all. >
  
  Pay more >
  
  Doesn't have to be. It's really that simple >
  
  I agree. These guys are really going to bat for companies making record profits. >
  
  “Pay more” isn’t a useful prescription, and tax policy is more complicated than that. Pointing it out isn’t going to bat for corps >
  
  Oh ok, I didn't realize tax policy is complicated. Thanks for pointing that out. >
  
  Your response sounds sarcastic, but you did say that it was simple in your prior comment
  
  It’s really that simple
  I agree >
  
  Maybe we should stop subsidizing them.....
  Just a crazy thought. >
  
  When are we going to redistribute this wealth? I mean really, there are many of us, and few of them. Viva la revolucion >
  
  historic*
  historic = notable in history
  historical = relating to history or past events >
  
  Reuters just got blasted >
  
  That's fuckin insane. >
  
  Don’t blast. Tax! >
  
  an excessive profits tax on them would be better >
  
  I'll say it again for those in the back: 
  WINDFALL TAX!!!! >
  
  Why don't the people in charge of this nation do anything about this obvious abuse of the subsidies our government is giving these companies?
  - The White House >
  
  And all of the conservatives are blaming Biden and espousing the greatness of capitalism >
  
  That’s before they recover subsidies from tax payers >
  
  They BLASTED 'em, eh?! I feel vindicated, time to move on I guess. >
  
  Don't just blast. Tax then for windfall profit and tax wealth. >
  
  I love how the CEO said please don't tax us, we just need to increase productivity 😃!! That is the problem they are not drilling at the places they have permits so there is more oil production!!! >
  
  $5-$7/gallon gas prices=$56 billion profit...
  Little or no income tax paid on that profit, right??? >
  
  Don't get mad, get taxing. 50% tax on super profitsmight be a place to start >
  
  And republicans blamed BIDEN for the crazy gas prices and having to tap into our reserves, when it was what every thinking person knew all along - brazen price gouging. >
  
  Over a billion a week. >
  
  “Inflation” >
  
  Nobody asked the White House to finger-blast ExxonMobil.  We would however like to remove their toys.  Stop subsidizing them directly, and stop subsidizing them indirectly by ignoring carbon externalities, and especially stop subsidizing them indirectly using the CIA, DOD, et al.
  Or you could choose to dissolve their corporate charter and nationalize them, as often happens when the oil industry gets too abusive to its host country.
  I don't know what I expected from the Senator from Delaware, corporate client-state, winner of the race to the bottom... But a sternly worded letter is offensively performative.  You just handed them $170 for every man, woman, and child in the US.  And then you publicly criticize them? >
  
  In the meantime Washington DC remains a revolving door into the private sector. This is just theater play. >
  
  Okay could they tax it instead of blasting it though? >
  
  Taxes are the constitutional purview of Congress and mostly the House of Reps.  The President can ask for taxes or point out income from taxes left on the table but he/she cannot just make taxes happen. >
  
  The govt blasting Exxon. The govt itself should be blamed for making it happen. >
  
  Oh no they blasted them so hard. Bet they will learn. >
  
  "Exxon's CFO Kathryn Mikells responded to growing criticism over the industry's windfall profits and suggested the answer is not increased taxes."
  They are telling us the answer. Tax the hell out of them. Huge tax increases. Big tax increases on their owners, a total ban on stock buybacks, big capital gains tax increases, and completely remove the social security cap.
  Take the top marginal rate back up to 70-90% and include capital gains. Shatter the REIT tax havens. >
  
  When I saw the grammar in the headline I didn't expect it would be Reuters.  RIP journalism. >
  
  "BLASTS" is the buzzword of the month I see
  Blasts would be a windfall tax or idk launching the exec into space never to return >
  
  price gouging during a pandemic is MAGA. >
  
  lousy BIDENFlation! 
  oh it was just rampant capitalism? oh my bad >
  
  That is about 1776 dollars per second, patriotic? >
  
  
  White House ~~blasts Exxon over historical $56 bln annual profit~~ continues to subsidize and enable record breaking profits in the oil and gas industry.
  
  End subsidies. >
  
  The rate at how quickly gas prices in my area fell after midterms was way too obvious that these fucks were artificially raising their prices to influence the election. Get record profits to fuck over the country at large and install more people to help you continue to fleece those people. >
  
  Let's not forget the monstrous salaries of not only the CEO but those within the hierarchy as it branches out underneath him/her. >
  
  White House blasts Exxon but refuses to take any other action…
  This is the correct headline >
  
  Capitalism is reaching a breaking point. The middle class has been effectively destroyed. >
  
  Love headlines that use words like”blast” as if there were any actual consequences. Nothing changes. Greed prevails. >
  
  All I can think of is how George W. Bush used to call the CEO of Enron (Kenneth Lay) “Kenny boy.” Pretty much tells ya all you need to know about the GOP and their relationship with big oil. >
  
  That's cool. But I'll start caring when they stop "blasting" people and start fucking arresting them. >
  
  Tax these fuckers and then give americans another round if stimulus >
  
  Sp why are we also still giving federal subsidizes to energy polluters like them! Isn't it time after $56B in profits (not revenue butnprofit) for them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps?  
  
  Or is welfare only bad when it's for a poor person? Corporate welfare still ok then? >
  
  The same goes for Shell , absolutely insane year results over our backs. >
  
  Fine any company that posts profiits during recessions. >
  
  I can’t wait to hear the old “ why should we penalize prosperity”. From the GOP. >
  
  White house to Exxon: "ya we'll just have em use blasts and slams today. the people'll forget about it by lunch" 
  Exxon: "great, great so are we still on for golf this weekend?" >
  
  Cool, nothing will change. >
  
  Come on , Reuters.  Historical and historic are not the same thing. Are we additionally upset, suddenly, about exxon's past annual profits? >
  
  Blasts. Lazy journalism. >
  
  Hey, have some respect! At least they didn't resort to 'slams'. >
  
  Lol, I'm lefty as fuck but the government can't 'blast' any company for profiting on rules laid out for them.
  I feel like Americans have been hoodwinked into blaming companies for doing what they're designed to do to take the heat off regulators and keep the status quo. >
  
  They are price gouging.  They aren't supposed to do that. >
  
  Yeah, kids aren't 'supposed' to swear.
  Put regulation around it with a watchdog that has the power to do something about it. >
  
  Can't.  Congress won't go for regulation of oil companies.  Just tiktok. >
  
  They could when they have both houses and that's my entire point. They're putting the blame on the companies when the anger and need for change needs to directed at Government representatives.
  That's the only way change will happen, putting pressure on companies will generate maybe a policy or two withdrawal from an effect of media spotlight. But that will be short lived and temporary at best. >
  
  You need 60 votes in senate and manuchin would nvr go for regulating oil either. Blame is on both, oil companies spend a lot of money lobbying politicians. >
  
  Lobbying is another thing the government controls the regulation on. >
  
  Well, coulda fooled me! >
  
  LOL this is all theater. Joe Biden will blast their profits publicly, while thanking them for the campaign donations privately. >
  
  Well maybe someone in the White House, like say the President, should fucking speak publicly about this more.
  But I guess that would be divisive malarkey. >
  
  It's literally the title of the article lol. Biden has spoken about it more than once.