Windfall tax oil /gas companies

Evan3020

If you don't like what the oil companies are doing then stop buying their products.

wittynamegoeshere

Thanks for the declaration of owning Shell shares, that confirms something of a vested interest in this issue!

So, for those here who appear to be fundamentalists as far as capitalism goes...

What about those entrepreneurs who bought all the baby food at the start of the covid lockdown then listed it on ebay for around 10x the original price when the supermarkets ran out?  Just supply and demand or immoral fleecing of the public?

How is this situation different?  Or is it OK when a FTSE company does it rather than some bloke with a shed?

gazapc

wittynamegoeshere said:

Thanks for the declaration of owning Shell shares, that confirms something of a vested interest in this issue!

So, for those here who appear to be fundamentalists as far as capitalism goes...

What about those entrepreneurs who bought all the baby food at the start of the covid lockdown then listed it on ebay for around 10x the original price when the supermarkets ran out?  Just supply and demand or immoral fleecing of the public?

How is this situation different?  Or is it OK when a FTSE company does it rather than some bloke with a shed?

In the example you've given, the baby food buyers themselves created the shortage and eliminated the competition (supermarkets) by buying up their stock.

Shell and the other 'big oil' players control a small proportion of global oil supply. They are not artificially supressing supply nor are they currently removing competition from the market. You can buy your oil from a nationalised oil company if you wish, but they will charge you just as much.

Evan3020

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62418653

wittynamegoeshere

I'm starting with the asssumption that the bloke buying baby food to stack in his shed does not have the ability to meaningfully affect supply.  He saw an opportunity to make a few quid, took the risk and "invested" in products that he thought would make a profit, because he thought a shortage was about to happen.  Thankfully there's effectively a controller in this instance, ebay was facing public criticism so brought in various rules and systems to prevent this sort of price-gouging, which is actually illegal in the US but not here.

Similarly, many US politicians are on the record as having bought oil and gas company shares at the outset of the Ukrainian situation, confident that where we are now would be the outcome, perhaps partly as a result of their political decisions.  Is this all fine?

All I'm suggesting is that giving capitalism a totally free hand can result in some very negative outcomes for the majority.  That's why governments control it in various ways, including tax but also in competition authorities and lots of other regulations.  Greed is not usually good for everyone else.  Those who choose to invest in companies also sign up to accept that governments can have an influence on how much they gain from it - buying shares is a risk, not a guaranteed get-rich-quick scheme.

Evan3020

Will YOU put your hand in your pocket to help BP/Shell when they record their next loss?

Evan3020

Unrestrained socialism is even worse.
Capitalism is not always pretty or fair but it works.

wittynamegoeshere

Evan3020 said:

Unrestrained socialism is even worse.

I don't think anyone's suggested that, this is the point I raised about internet debates getting falsely polarised.  If you take socialism to its limit, you end up with China or Russia.

There's a massive spectrum of approaches, our parties are somewhere in the middle.

I don't think anyone would like living under unrestrained capitalism.  That is why we have a government.

If capitalism wasn't regulated then one oil or gas company would buy the rest and hold the world to ransom.  We're not in that situation, but this war put the remaining suppliers in a position closer to that end.

wittynamegoeshere

Evan3020 said:

Will YOU put your hand in your pocket to help BP/Shell when they record their next loss?

Of course not.  But if they were on the brink AND the government thought that it was in the public interest then they could choose to support them, just as they did with the thousands of other businesses that were directly affected by covid.

MattMattMattUK

wittynamegoeshere said:

Evan3020 said:

Will YOU put your hand in your pocket to help BP/Shell when they record their next loss?

Of course not. 

So why do you expect the energy companies to put their hand in their pocket to benefit you?

Energy companies lost tens of billions during Covid, When accounting for their losses from exiting Russia both BP and Shell both might end up breaking even overall this year, even if their underlying profit is high. Are you willing to bail out their global losses from Russia? Or do you expect to benefit from one part of their global profit?

wittynamegoeshere said:

Evan3020 said:

Will YOU put your hand in your pocket to help BP/Shell when they record their next loss?

 But if they were on the brink AND the government thought that it was in the public interest then they could choose to support them,

What has that got to do with your desire to confiscate their profits for your personal benefit?

wittynamegoeshere said:
just as they did with the thousands of other businesses that were directly affected by covid.

However the energy companies lost billions during Covid, but were not given huge handouts by the government. Many businesses also received little or no help (mine and myself included) due to the government imposed economic shutdown. People have to take responsibility for themselves, confiscating private funds and expecting the government to parent them is not a viable solution.