Why aren’t people unhappy that Apple, CocaCola, and McDonald’s all had higher profits than “Big Oil”?
Question by Rick: Why aren’t people unhappy that Apple, CocaCola, and McDonald’s all had higher profits than “Big Oil”?
I always hear about the “obscene” profits of ExxonMobil, but they only made 8% profit as opposed to 32% Coca Cola’s.
If profits are bad, why aren’t they uniformly bad. Even if someone were to argue gas is “necessary” whereas iPhones, Cokes, and Big Macs aren’t, gasoline wasn’t “necessary” for thousands of years of human survival, and I’d say communication and food are as essential as transportation.
I know there is no good answer out there, but I do enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals. The answer is that Apple donates big amounts of money to Obama whereas ExxonMobil doesn’t. If Apple wasn’t a big liberal donor, we’d be hearing about their “obscene” profits, in the middle of a recession no less!
Best answer:
Answer by SmartA$$
The difference is the number of zeros on the total profit.
When Exxon or some other big oil company has trillions of dollars pass through their business, and they make an 8% net profit, you end up talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. When Coke or Apple make 32% profit, your talking about tens, or hundreds of millions.
I agree with you. Businesses exist to make profit, and 8% is less than most businesses. Most businesses would close up shop or change what they do if they made single digit profit margins.
Add your own answer in the comments!