Businesses need to make a profit, even oil companies
Letters to the Editor
Published November 17, 2005
Re: Record prices, record profits: The markets worked, Nov. 14.
The column by William Raspberry was in my opinion awful or worse. Raspberry must have studied under professor Paul Krugman. Reporters need to secure a basic understanding in economics and business administration prior to writing about the subject.
Businesses, including oil companies, need to create a net return on investments for reinvestment in the business and return some profits to the investors. The alternative is that we all go down the tubes when profits and tax income decrease to zero.
The real profits of oil and other companies should be stated as a percentage, which in the present oil business is just above 7 percent. Any person could take one dollar to an investment firm and get a return of 8 pennies or better by doing nothing but sitting and waiting for the money to come in. So why should I invest in and run an oil company with all the headaches rather than getting a better return by doing nothing but enjoying my investment income from a stock broker?
-- Charles E. Macneill, Crystal River
The return of energy conservation
Re: Record prices, record profits: A fleeting opportunity, Nov. 14.
It's good to see that conservation, the "personal virtue" Dick Cheney blithely relegated to the closet, is finally coming out.
Now, columnist Charles Krauthammer touts conservation as a beneficial result of imposing a national gasoline tax. I applaud this "new Republican idea," especially if the tax goes into a coffer to be used exclusively for research and development of alternative fuels. Don't I remember that John Kerry was skewered in the last election for having earlier supported such a bold proposal?
Krauthammer advocates drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as another part of our energy policy. But there have been plenty of studies showing that even a small increase in conserving will save more gasoline than what we can expect to gain from our destruction of ANWR.
-- Mary Parrott, Palm Harbor
Higher gas tax seems like a joke
For quite a while I have been energized and interested when Charles Krauthammer has appeared on TV and in the opinion pages of your newspaper. He often is an adult among children with his logical and reasoned opinions.
However, in his Nov. 14 opinion piece, Record prices, record profits: A fleeting opportunity, he lobbies for a large gasoline tax in order to fix our energy problems.
Put another huge amount of money in the hands of the federal government? Has Krauthammer lost his mind? Didn't we do that a long time ago with Social Security? Didn't the feds channel much of the billions collected to other, more favored programs - angling to gain their own re-election - and resulting in Social Security facing bankruptcy? Surely Krauthammer is joking.
-- Marvin Koursh, St. Petersburg
A selfish energy attitude
Re: Gulf rigs could tar both coasts, Nov. 14.
This is the most selfish thing I've ever heard of! We expect oil drilling in other people's backyards so we can have all the oil we need. But not in my back yard (NIMBY)! If Florida won't allow oil drilling off our coast, we should not be allowed to import oil! Without oil and gas, tourists would be unable to drive to Florida to enjoy our pristine beaches! See if that would change your tune!
-- John Marson, Tampa
Beachgoers will pay a price
Re: Gulf oil rigs.
Having lived in Santa Barbara, Calif., and jogged those beaches, I've learned how to remove tar from the bottom of both feet. California's offshore oil rigs exact a silent, ugly tax paid by beachgoers. Now that America's "leadership" works for lobby money, I expect to be buying turpentine to keep my feet clean after a Sunset Beach run.
-- Bruce H. Alexander, St. Petersburg
Work on ethanol efficiency
For years, we have thrown away money subsidizing corn-producing land barons to limit their production of corn. This does nothing to help the general public. The Nov. 9 New York Times reported a shocking $22.7-billion for next year's subsidies in this area alone. All the while, we are talking about looking for alternate energy, about pollution control, about creating jobs.
I have personally owned four ethanol-powered cars in Brazil. These responded well with gasoline priming kits to overcome cold conditions. The technology has existed for many years now and has been highly improved with engines that run on ethanol and/or gas.
Ethanol is far better for the environment and has been used even in race cars. True, processing ethanol from corn may not be nearly efficient as from sugar cane, but let us at least work toward becoming energy independent. Why not use the subsidy monies partly toward finding ways to more efficiently yield ethanol from corn?
We would then create jobs in that industry, maximize jobs in the corn producing industry (labor and machinery), reduce the dependency on oil and help to clean up the environment.
-- Alban Beaulieu, Tampa
How do they spend it all?
Re: Oil execs try to justify price jumps, Nov. 10.
This article said the yearly compensation of three oil company chief executive officers ranged from $6.5-million to $38.1-million. It would be a fair assumption that many of their executives also receive millions in compensation.
It would be interesting to know how these people live with this kind of income. Multiple houses (big, of course) and top-of-the-line automobiles, for sure. How can they possibly spend this huge income? Much less could still afford a kingly lifestyle for their families.
-- Harry Fisler, Oldsmar
HARTline prices are out of line
Re: Change of HARTline.
I spent most of my youth here "knowing" that HARTline was terrible and avoiding it at all costs. On moving back to Tampa three years ago, I still "knew" this. Recently I tried to change that opinion. I figured I could deal with bad schedules.
All was fine until I saw the fares that HARTline is charging! I don't know that I've ever seen such prices for such limited service! Certainly, fares in Portland or D.C. are as much or more. But they've got buses and trains that go across much larger metro areas with schedules that work.
I understand that operating public transportation isn't cheap. However, it is astounding that anyone could imagine $1.50 for a one-way nontransferable fare as affordable for those who rely on the bus for transportation.
For me, $3 for a round trip bus ride vs. less than a gallon of gas for my commute is a toss up. Throw in poor scheduling and it's out of the question.
-- Jennifer Jones, Tampa
[Last modified November 17, 2005, 01:32:18]
