Lion of the Blogosphere

How is T-Rex doing?

The mainstream media has had nothing but bad things to say about Rex Tillerson. However, the MSM hates everything about the Trump administration, and cannot be trusted as any sort of unbiased source of information. Not when the topic is Trump or anyone he has hired.

Because the White House provides little if any sort of top-down guidance for any of the cabinet positions (at least not that I can discern), each department head is left to pursue his or her own agenda. And what is Rex Tillerson’s agenda? I would guess that he has no policy-oriented goals at all, and his main agenda is to reorganize the State Department because he believes it’s a bloated and useless government bureaucracy and not a lean mean oil-producing machine like ExxonMobil. Rex probably sees most of the department’s staff as a bunch of spoiled SWPL kids who couldn’t get real value-creating jobs in corporate America with their useless degrees in foreign languages and international relations.

Let’s step back a moment and ponder whether ExxonMobil really is a lean machine type of organization. Libertarian types who leave comments on blogs have this crazy idea that all corporations are run super-logically and hyper-efficiently. They can’t possibly have ever worked for a big corporation. I know for a fact that the corporation I work for is the very opposite of super-logical and hyper-efficient.

One big difference between Exxon Mobile and the company I work for is that my employer has a monopoly, while Exxon Mobile is the rare big corporation with very little, if any, monopoly power. Yes, unlike most big corporations, ExxonMobil actually has to compete. Exxon Mobile has no pricing power at all for its upstream product, crude oil, very little for its middle-stream refined petroleum products such as gasoline, and a small amount for its downstream product, gasoline sold at gas stations. (Regarding retail gasoline: car and truck owners may be willing to pay a little extra for the Exxon brand, but only a very little extra because gasoline is generally perceived by consumers to be a fungible product).

While I find it hard to imagine that any company as big as ExxonMobil cannot have a lot of corporate politics and useless senior management who keep their jobs only because they are good at sucking up to the people above them, the place is still probably run more efficiently than the Department of State with its approximately 70,000 employees.

All of this, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that Tillerson is up to the task of reforming a mess of a huge bureaucracy. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. Tillerson became CEO of Exxon not because he’s an Ayn Randian superman like John Galt or Howard Roark, but because he was better at playing the corporate politics game than everyone else at ExxonMobil.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 7, 2017 at 9:39 am

64 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Exxon is one of the best-run, and most efficient companies on earth. Steve Coll’s book Private Empire makes that clear, even if it wasn’t his intent (as a left-leaning journalist). Exxon doesn’t make the same mistake twice, and some mistakes it avoids all together (for example, it avoids getting involved in nation-building, even when some backward countries ask it to take on more of a role).

    Dave Pinsen

    August 7, 2017 at 10:01 am

    • Haven’t read the book, but this appears to be true. Exxon was well positioned for the drop in oil prices from $100 to $50. Their earnings took a hit, but they stayed profitable and are easily funding their dividend. Most of the other majors have had at least one year of unprofitability, and in many cases their ability to pay the dividend has been in question.

      The same dynamic could be seen in the financial crisis: Goldman, the smartest guys in the room, did alright and bounced back. AIG, the dumbest guys in the room, got hammered and never recovered.

      An oil major probably needs some amount of competence to keep generating returns through the ups and downs, and Lion’s observations are good. But note that you can get pretty far as an independent upstream company just by going balls to the wall and being lucky, without any particular insightful decisions.

      Wency

      August 7, 2017 at 12:45 pm

      • Exxon is more insulated from price drops than the other supermajors because Saudi oil costs only $2/bbl to extract.

        (This is also why the Saudis have us by the balls; nationalize their oilfields and they bankrupt Exxon overnight, and even raising royalties or another embargo would be massively damaging).

        snorlaxwp

        August 7, 2017 at 1:48 pm

      • Are you a major stockholder in Exxon? Why does having Exxon by the balls translate into having “us” by the balls?

        Magnavox

        August 7, 2017 at 4:45 pm

      • Because it would cause a general stock market crash and raise the price of oil two or threefold, stupid.

        snorlaxwp

        August 7, 2017 at 5:29 pm

      • It would cause oil to go up in price only if saudi arabia sold less oil after nationalizing. Why would they nationalize only their oil only to not sell it? And Saudi Arabia can and does control its oil production without nationalizing its oil fields. So the equation of one with the other seems ridiculous. And then its the supposed spike in oil prices that would cause a general stock market crash or just the crash of Exxon Mobil value, which only amounts to about 1% of the market cap of the S&P 500?

        Magnavox

        August 7, 2017 at 10:12 pm

      • InfoSpace and eToys, or Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, were tiny compared to Exxon. Oil prices would increase because

        1. The Saudis are lazy camel-fuckers who don’t know how to operate or maintain the equipment, which is why third-world nationalizations always result in 50% or larger decreases in production.
        2. They would start selling the oil at the highest price the market will bear instead of to Exxon at a ~95% discount.
        3. It would be seen as potentially portending a move to sell oil in non-USD-denominated markets, and also more nationalizations or unpredictable acts by oil producers.
        4. Given American popular opinion re 9/11 etc, a US invasion would be likely and, if not that, an Arab Spring-style subversion campaign would be certain.

        snorlaxwp

        August 8, 2017 at 1:27 am

      • Your argument falls into the trap that so many of these style arguments on the internet fall into: if you were capable of predicting the financial consequences of events with any significant degree of accuracy you would be too busy making money to have any time to comment on the internet.

        Magnavox

        August 8, 2017 at 7:50 am

      • Stupes, if I’m ever tipped off in advance that the Saudis are about to nationalize their oilfields (an unlikely event, as would being tipped off), you can rest assured my bank account would have another digit added to it.

        snorlaxwp

        August 8, 2017 at 1:00 pm

      • But if you could predict the outcomes of events to the specificiy that you’re claiming you would already be the world’s richest man.

        Magnavox

        August 9, 2017 at 9:07 pm

  2. It’s worth noting that Ayn Rand’s globalist corporations as well as elite-tier universities actually really were all real meritocracies of their time, peaking in the 1950’s. From the 1960’s on, however, meritocracy got extended so far that it started to select cheaters instead of the hardest workers as it reached negative returns to scale. You can see this best in the Supreme Court’s decline of Protestant influence and increase in nominal Catholic and Jewish power. Naive grinders like Protestants (and post-Protestant mostly Northern European atheists) and East Asians aren’t welcome there anymore. Formalism is on a downward slope that might not even end within this century.

    It’s really only recently in Generation Z that there is any kind of mass questioning of the beta male solid salary man lifestyle. Entrepreneurs are admired and risk-averse massive corporations are derided (stock buybacks are noticeably particularly despised). It’s not uncommon to imagine oneself dropping out to invest earlier in life, skipping the preppy conformity that’s supposed to lead to a high wage much later. Anarcho-capitalism 2.0 is the ideology of the day. Hippies and hipsters and beatniks and so on might have just been a bit ahead of their time, eccentric in just the right way for the 21st century.

    Millennials who grew up on ritalin, low fat diets, and tiger mom schooling are absolutely a LOST GENERATION stuck in between Gen X and Gen Z, which culturally share so much in common. Millennials are like the manifestation of the Baby Boomer cultural hangover, stuck with worthless degrees that no longer command prestige and an entitlement to upward mobility. Donald Trump being president pretty much says it all about the zeitgeist even if he doesn’t personally succeed.

    Anonymous Fake

    August 7, 2017 at 10:12 am

    • Blame abortion politics for lack of WASPs on the Supreme Court. Republicans like Catholics because they are “pro-life,” liberals like Jews because they are “pro-choice,” neither side trusts WASPs to be completely on their side of the abortion issue.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 7, 2017 at 10:30 am

      • Democrats are a lot more to blame for the abortion impasse than Republicans. This week the Democrats are in a twist about even giving national party support to pro-life Democrats. Blow-hards like Rosie O’Donnell and Howard Dean are sputtering with rage that the thought would be considered.

        There is an Irony here because back in January 1973 when Roe v. Wade was mandated to the country more Democrat politicians were pro-life than Republicans were. Let’s just list a few who were vocally pro-life and critical of Roe v. Wade: Ted Kennedy, Richard Gephardt, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Chris Dodd, Thomas Eagleton (VP candidate 72), Edmund Muskie (VP candidate 68) and the list goes on and on. It were the Rockefeller type Republicans who were gunning to make Abortion the law of the land.

        Increasingly over the past 45 years the Democrats have driven out all pro-life politicians, and many of their voters too.

        Daniel

        August 8, 2017 at 1:52 am

    • Also take note that Kagan was most likely chosen because Obama wanted sexual orientation diversity, he didn’t care about her religion. (Obama, personally, doesn’t seem to like Jews that much. Trump likes Jews a lot more than Obama does.)

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 7, 2017 at 10:33 am

      • The Jewish Law doesn’t also for childless judges. The reason given is that not having brought up children, they have an inclination to cruelty. I think this is true for all judges. She should’ve never been appointed.

        Yakov

        August 7, 2017 at 11:06 am

      • Blame abortion politics for lack of WASPs on the Supreme Court.

        I agree that presidents are avoiding appointing protestants. But I’m not sure why. Abortion seems like a plausible guess. But I don’t see the smoking gun for that being it.
        **
        “The reason given is that not having brought up children, they have an inclination to cruelty.”

        I wouldn’t want a judge, politician, clergy or leader of any kind who was single and childless. But cruelty never crossed my mind. Getting married and having children alters one’s perspective and priorities. You can see this in exit polling. Of course, one can see it in the people they know. It’s obvious.

        destructure

        August 7, 2017 at 12:37 pm

      • You can see this best in the Supreme Court’s decline of Protestant influence and increase in nominal Catholic and Jewish power. Naive grinders like Protestants (and post-Protestant mostly Northern European atheists) and East Asians aren’t welcome there anymore.

        That’s a lie – from 1969 to 1994 there NO Jews on the High Court and many Liberal rulings were made during this time. From 1994 until 2009 when Souter’s retired 2 of the 4 Liberal SCOTUS Justices (Souter and Stevens) were Liberal WASPs.

        Naive grinders like Protestants (and post-Protestant mostly Northern European atheists)

        WASPs are not grinders. They are an elite segment of Northeastern Protestants, tend to be Liberal, and go into value transference fields like Jews do.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 7, 2017 at 2:34 pm

      • Blame abortion politics for lack of WASPs on the Supreme Court.

        There were no Jews on the court (1969 to 1994) when Roe was made, idiot.

        There were 3 Jews from 1966 to 1969. From WWII to 1966 I believe the only Jew was Felix Frankfurter who became somewhat Conservative over time.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 7, 2017 at 2:36 pm

      • Back when there was anti-Semitism, few Jews were appointed to the highest court.

        After Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion Right got a bunch of anti-abortion Catholics onto the Court,and the pro-abortion left has countered with Jewish justices.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 7, 2017 at 3:08 pm

      • Blame abortion politics for lack of WASPs on the Supreme Court.

        The Court was WASP (no Jews on the court from 1969 to 1994) when Roe was made.

        There were 3 Jews from 1966 to 1969. From WWII to 1966 I believe the only Jew was Felix Frankfurter who became somewhat Conservative over time.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 7, 2017 at 2:40 pm

      • Republicans like Catholics because they are “pro-life,” liberals like Jews because they are “pro-choice,” neither side trusts WASPs to be completely on their side of the abortion issue.

        Catholics have been preferred because they tend to be swing votes.

        Reagan didn’t have very good WASP options because they were usually Liberal, which the Episcopalian Souter proved when he was nominated by Bush 1 and marketed as a “Conservative” that backfired disastrously.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 7, 2017 at 2:43 pm

      • Souter was so Liberal he might as well have been appointed by a Democratic President.

        Evangelical Protestants judges exist but they aren’t as intelligent as Liberal Northeastern Protestant judges.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 7, 2017 at 2:46 pm

      • “I wouldn’t want a judge, politician, clergy or leader of any kind who was single and childless.”

        A high proportion of European leaders are childless.

        Peter

        ironrailsironweights

        August 7, 2017 at 3:58 pm

      • A high proportion of European leaders are childless.

        And they consistently rank as more pleasant and competently run places. They’ll have to do quite a bit of work before their racial demographics even approach what exists in the US.

        Magnavox

        August 7, 2017 at 4:50 pm

      • The Talmudists believed that going through the struggle of raising a future generation and putting it on its feet is the experience that softens man’s heart.

        Yakov

        August 7, 2017 at 5:32 pm

      • That’s because only Republicans nominated anyone to the Supreme Court from 1969-94. It’s the Democrats who appoint lots of Jewish judges (7 of 10 Dem SC nominations since 1962), not Republicans, although Reagan did unsuccessfully nominate Douglas Ginsburg.

        snorlaxwp

        August 7, 2017 at 5:48 pm

      • That’s because only Republicans nominated anyone to the Supreme Court from 1969-94.

        You’re still a bit off target.

        The Liberal WASP makeup of the Court at the start of that period was selected before 1969. Back then William Rehnquist was nicknamed “The Lone Ranger” because he was often the only dissenting Conservative Justice against the Liberal majority in losing 8-1 decisions.

        Gradually the High Court was tilted by Republican Presidents to just a bare Republican leaning majority (if consider Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to have made it somewhat Conservative leaning, which you may not for decent reasons). We would have had a clear majority if Gerald Ford hadn’t nominated John Paul Stevens and Bush 1 hadn’t repeated Ford’s mistake with David Souter.

        But it took decades to move the needle that far from the Left to the center.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 7, 2017 at 7:01 pm

      • No doubt anti-Semites would say that the WASPs were liberal because of evil super-powerful Jewish mind control.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 7, 2017 at 7:15 pm

      • No doubt anti-Semites would say that the WASPs were liberal because of evil super-powerful Jewish mind control.

        The truth is Jews are liberal because of evil super-powerful WASP mind control.

        But then we both get accused of being anti-anti-semites for pointing out the facts.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 7, 2017 at 7:23 pm

      • While she is single and looks butch, there is no direct evidence Kagan is a lesbian, and she has publicly denied it. Sure it is possible she’s a woman-preferring asexual, however on the other side is the fact she is kind of flirty and feminine, at least compared to woman lawyers in general.

        ZZZY

        August 7, 2017 at 7:25 pm

      • I don’t know where you got the idea that the average woman lawyer is less feminine than Kagan.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 7, 2017 at 7:58 pm

      • And what is their issue with Catholics?

        From 1969 to 1994 the Liberal WASP Court became more Conservative as more Catholics like Scalia were appointed. It would have been a 7-2 Conservative Court by 1994 if Ford and Bush 1 hadn’t each appointed a WASP Justice (Stevens by Ford; Souter by GHWB) who turned out to be far Leftists.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 7, 2017 at 7:26 pm

      • I agree that presidents are avoiding appointing protestants. But I’m not sure why.

        You were sure Jews weren’t being singled out by the altright unfairly, but then we see this tendency to omit the fact a Liberal SCOTUS from 1969 to 1994 (the one that approved Roe) was WASP dominated, free of Jews, and yet a curious lack of interest in discussing the Liberalism of WASP Justices.

        I guess you were lying once again.

        It’s ok if you don’t own up to being wrong, insignificant minds are expected to not taking responsibility for their former positions.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 8, 2017 at 12:52 am

      • Bork was a Protestant (although became Catholic in 2003).

        Myers and Ginsburg would have been Jewish justices.

        Lion o' the Turambar

        August 8, 2017 at 9:36 am

    • It’s really only recently in Generation Z that there is any kind of mass questioning of the beta male solid salary man lifestyle. Entrepreneurs are admired and risk-averse massive corporations are derided (stock buybacks are noticeably particularly despised).

      Generation Z is those born in 2001 or later. Perhaps one 16-year-old in a thousand* knows what a stock buyback even is, much less “particularly despises” them.

      *Or one 46-year-old in a hundred.

      snorlaxwp

      August 7, 2017 at 5:38 pm

      • Hippies?

        Curle

        August 7, 2017 at 6:49 pm

  3. Hate to nitpick, but it repeats so many times in this post that it gets distracting…

    It’s Exxon-Mobil, not Mobile.

    J1

    August 7, 2017 at 10:37 am

    • Well if companies want their names spelled correctly, they shouldn’t make up fake words.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      August 7, 2017 at 10:48 am

    • Or Standard of New Jersey & Standard of New York.

      Curle

      August 7, 2017 at 6:53 pm

  4. Seems to me that a desire to slim down State needn’t be driven from invidious comparison to the “efficiency” of the corporate milieu. Instead, it might follow from the common sense observation that there really is no such thing as foreign policy expertise. Ever since Carter (I.e. since the muslim countries became the main offshore players), it’s been clear that that there is no useful knowledge to be gained from whatever coursework these sorts of types of people receive. What would make a great documentary would be a series of interviews with random Ivy-educated State employees, to the question: what can you tell us about the Islamic world? Any generalizations useful for policy?” You’d get nothing but a bunch of laughable contradictions.

    Marty

    August 7, 2017 at 10:45 am

    • “…what can you tell us about the Islamic world? Any generalizations useful for policy?”

      If you make that the criterion for being in the State Dept, all you’ll do is ensure that the Islamic takeover will accelerate even more.

      Jesse

      August 7, 2017 at 3:43 pm

  5. I was pretty astounded recently when I saw that State employs something like 75,000 people. What on earth are they all doing? That’s 382 people for every country on earth. Absurd.

    Then I read that Tillerson wants to make “big cuts” in 2018 of like 2,300 people. Sheesh. You could probably do that by attrition if you just stopped hiring for two years. And also, there are people quitting because their feelz are hurt — I’m not even kidding about that, that’s what they are saying. But that is because they are not neutral bureaucrats working for the government, but they are partisan ideologues and if they can’t push their Progressive agenda, they want out. This is all to the good, and Tillerson should encourage people to leave. Since most of what the State Dept does is make trouble, an empty chair is far, far better than a chair filled with some Leftist agitator.

    Honestly, I think you could randomly fire 50% of the staff, and no nation on earth would notice a difference, other than that guy who used to take them out to expensive dinners is gone.

    About Exxon, they also do a lot of business in chemicals and plastics, industrial lubricants and crap like that. And then there’s airplane and ship fuel. I have no idea if those areas are more competitive and price flexible than consumer gasoline. I also wonder what percentage of a gas stations’ profits are actually from selling chips and drinks rather than gasoline.

    peterike

    August 7, 2017 at 10:47 am

    • I was pretty astounded recently when I saw that State employs something like 75,000 people. What on earth are they all doing? That’s 382 people for every country on earth. Absurd.

      Anyone not blinded by anti government prejudice would recognize that you need to understand what the state department employees do before you decide that their jobs are pointless.

      Magnavox

      August 7, 2017 at 5:05 pm

      • The one I know best spent all her time at her duty station ‘promoting American businesses.’ Something I thought Commerce did.

        Curle

        August 7, 2017 at 6:46 pm

  6. I was pretty astounded recently when I saw that State employs something like 75,000 people. What on earth are they all doing? That’s 382 people for every country on earth. Absurd.

    Agreed! Good post!

    there are people quitting because their feelz are hurt

    Where does a former state department employee go look for work? What marketable skills would they bring to the private sector?

    When I finished by MBA, I interviewed with ExxonMobil for a position in TX. I thought it went quite well but no job offer was forthcoming.

    E. Rekshun

    August 7, 2017 at 11:49 am

    • Did the MBA help you in any real way?

      Yakov

      August 7, 2017 at 12:02 pm

      • No. But it didn’t hurt either.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 7, 2017 at 12:05 pm

      • No. But it didn’t hurt either.

        Unless the classes were free and you were paid to attend it hurt a lot.

        destructure

        August 7, 2017 at 12:55 pm

      • My employer had tuition reimbursement, plus I got a deferral on my then-existing student loans for being a student, so there was no negative impact on my disposable income from being an evening MBA student.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 7, 2017 at 1:26 pm

      • Did you learn useful stuff? Lion, did it help you?

        Yakov

        August 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm

      • Probably learned enough about the kind of people running American businesses.

        Curle

        August 7, 2017 at 6:41 pm

      • MBAs are pointless, contra Mugabe/Ian Smith. I know that trick.

        GondwanaMan

        August 7, 2017 at 8:00 pm

    • A lot of state department people have high level foreign language skills. This is useful in academia, technical translation, customer service as well as international organizations/international development. So, there are a lot of options out there. The question really is, “Do they WANT to work?” It’s really tough to go from the 9-6 govt bureaucrat lifestyle to the 50-60 hour, always on call, corporate grind in the USA. Very attractive at $600K/yr sure, but $80K?

      I made the opposite move a few years back, and my quality of life improved immeasurably. I actually think my longevity has increased. As many international organizations pay tax free salaries, I also make considerably more money. I don’t look on my former colleagues with disdain, but I often have this sense that they are victims of something.

      The Shepherd

      August 8, 2017 at 4:41 am

  7. I read there were more than 3 million people working for the executive branch. Trump could fire 2 million of them and the country would be better for it.

    destructure

    August 7, 2017 at 12:52 pm

  8. Lion and I are kind of thinking alike – I have also been wondering why everything seems to be going so smoothly with the tyro Tillerson why all the other outsiders keep stumbling.

    This article is interesting because it seems like Tillerson seem to be just giving people “Acting” titles until they earn his trust.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tillerson-statedepartment-idUSKBN1AH5CR

    Lion o' the Turambar

    August 7, 2017 at 3:01 pm

  9. “I was pretty astounded recently when I saw that State employs something like 75,000 people. What on earth are they all doing? That’s 382 people for every country on earth. Absurd.”

    The State Department issues 10 million visas a year and 18 million passports to US citizens.

    I would guess there are more visa applications than visas issued, because lots of people get turned down in 3rd world countries. Somebody has to review all those visa applications and make yes/no decisions. The State Department issues 133 visas per year for each employee.

    Issuing passports is a little more straight forward, but somebody still has to check the documentation and verify that the person is a US citizen. The State Department issues 240 passports per year per employee.

    The State Department also operates embassies and consulates in every country, including some security.

    The State Department is suppose to brief the President before talking with foreign leaders so he is aware of all the issues that might come up in the conversation and explain sensitive issues that need to be discussed carefully. Trump has apparently completely dispensed with this. Trump does not care if he looks uninformed or offends foreign leaders so he does not need this function.

    mikeca

    August 7, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    • Much of the visa processing is likely computerized. At least to the point of flagging high risk applications for manual review, and green lighting others that probably get a cursory review (especially people getting a visa for the n-th time, and there are a lot of those). I would guess one person can do hundreds of them a day, if not even thousands. My gut feeling is that close scrutiny isn’t in the cards for the vast majority of visa applications. Tight security isn’t really a thing when it comes to immigration, visa overstayers (anybody who wants to it would seem), and so on. At least it hasn’t been for a long time. Maybe that’s changing.

      Still, it’s true that we have people in embassies all over the world. That seems a useful enough function, to help Americans who are in trouble in foreign lands. Though again I’m sure embassies probably have double the people they need in some places (everyone wants to work in Paris — well maybe not anymore), and probably not enough in others (helping Borats in Kazakhstan).

      So maybe 75,000 isn’t completely crazy, only mostly crazy.

      The following suggests a certain lack of attention having been paid in the past:

      “More than 600,000 foreign travelers who legally entered the United States in 2016 overstayed their visas and remained in the country at the end of the year, the Department of Homeland Security reported Monday…
      People who overstay their visas make up an estimated 40% of the 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the U.S… [11 million — hah!] The department changed the way it calculates visa overstays, but an analysis of the most popular visa categories shows a 13% increase in overstays in 2016 from the previous year. Little has been known about the population in the past. Homeland Security issued the first report on visa overstays in January 2016.”

      The first report! 75,000 people and nobody bothered to do an A – B = C report until now.

      To cut them some slack, I’m sure the computer systems at State, as in much of the government, are total crap. The NSA gets all the good stuff [waves at NSA people stealthily peering through his webcam].

      peterike

      August 7, 2017 at 6:24 pm

      • My Tajik had overstayed his visa. That’s how he got in. His nephew and son in law did the same. Both are working for Uber now. Streets are full of these people. Should be very easy to deport, if someone realy wants to. What’s taking so long? I like my Tajik and bear no malice towards him, I’m saying in general.

        Yakov

        August 7, 2017 at 8:01 pm

      • State Department issues Visas. Most of these are issues at embassies. When someone with a visa arrives in the US, there entry is handled by DHS, not State. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issues an I-94 and this form must be returned when leaving the country.

        For many years airlines collected I-94s from departing passengers and turned them over to CBP which did nothing with them. There were no computers to process the I-94 and no manpower to manually process them. Congress had for years refused to allocate money to fund this. After 9/11 I believe Congress finally allocated money so CBP could buy computers necessary to process I-94 from departing visitors so that they can find the list of overstays.

        It would be up to ICE to track the overstays down and deport them. Obviously, given the number of overstays, that is a huge task.

        State Department issues visas but once the visitors get here, it is CBP and ICE’s responsibility to keep track of them.

        mikeca

        August 7, 2017 at 8:35 pm

      • A successful Irishman who is an electrician was deported back to his homeland by ICE agents, after they found out that his visa expired many mooneys ago. And it appears that they only found out about him, when he appeared on TV talking about his illegal status. I guess it wasn’t a smart thing to do.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4672924/Irishman-lived-US-illegally-decade-deported.html

        Now, the SJWs and anti-racists can have their cake and eat it.

        JS

        August 7, 2017 at 10:14 pm

  10. Exxon I agree is very well run. Rex worked his way up to the top from a middle class background, not enough people in Trump’s cabinet are like that.

    I doubt many Exxon stations are still owned by Exxon, rather they mostly just license the name like a franchise. I don’t even think Exxon stations are especially likely to get Exxon extracted and refined gas compared to non-Exxon stations.

    Running gas stations is very steady and low profits while oil companies are cyclical. Separating such businesses usually results in higher stock valuations. In 2011 Marathon separated into upstream and mid/downstream companies with separate listings: MRO and MPC.

    ZZZY

    August 7, 2017 at 7:35 pm

  11. Initially, I thought you were talking about the late 60’s-70’s Anglo Prole band fronted by Marc Bolan (Jewish-Marc Feld).

    JS

    August 7, 2017 at 10:01 pm

  12. “Libertarian types who leave comments on blogs have this crazy idea that all corporations are run super-logically and hyper-efficiently. They can’t possibly have ever worked for a big corporation. I know for a fact that the corporation I work for is the very opposite of super-logical and hyper-efficient.”

    Have you ever worked in government Lion? Because efficiency is a relative term. It may well be that IQ 140+ people such as yourself can identify inefficiency in a corporation, but very few people have 140+ IQ. The point is that virtually anyone can identify inefficiency in government, even people with an IQ of 90, that is how obvious, overwhelming, and crippling government inefficiency is.

    DataExplorer

    August 8, 2017 at 9:28 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: