"All told, these profit levels have put the world's five largest publicly traded oil companies on track to earn more than $100 billion before year's end. Yet, at the same time that Big Oil's bottom line is going up, so are Americans' energy costs"
About this Quote
A tidy set of numbers becomes an indictment once Schwartz yokes them together: $100 billion on one side, rising household bills on the other. The line is built to make “yet” do moral work. Profit isn’t presented as a neutral outcome of markets; it’s framed as a perverse coincidence bordering on a betrayal, a moment when corporate success and public pain climb in tandem.
The specific intent is legislative and rhetorical at once. Schwartz, a politician, isn’t merely reporting an earnings forecast; she’s building a case for scrutiny: hearings, windfall-profit proposals, tougher regulation, or at minimum a public shaming that raises the political cost of inaction. By specifying “the world’s five largest publicly traded” firms, she signals that this is not mom-and-pop volatility or a temporary supply hiccup. It’s concentrated power with accountable shareholders, executive bonuses, and quarterly calls.
The subtext is class friction. “Big Oil’s bottom line” is a stand-in for a system where gains are privatized and the fallout is socialized. Americans, cast as payers rather than participants, experience energy not as a commodity but as a mandatory fee for modern life: commuting, heating, staying employed. That’s why the juxtaposition lands; energy costs are uniquely intimate, showing up at the pump like a public scoreboard.
Contextually, this is the post-shock politics of oil: geopolitical disruption, price spikes, and renewed arguments over whether “record profits” are savvy management or opportunism in a crisis. Schwartz aims to collapse that ambiguity. If profits soar while families strain, the market’s alibi starts to sound like a dodge.
The specific intent is legislative and rhetorical at once. Schwartz, a politician, isn’t merely reporting an earnings forecast; she’s building a case for scrutiny: hearings, windfall-profit proposals, tougher regulation, or at minimum a public shaming that raises the political cost of inaction. By specifying “the world’s five largest publicly traded” firms, she signals that this is not mom-and-pop volatility or a temporary supply hiccup. It’s concentrated power with accountable shareholders, executive bonuses, and quarterly calls.
The subtext is class friction. “Big Oil’s bottom line” is a stand-in for a system where gains are privatized and the fallout is socialized. Americans, cast as payers rather than participants, experience energy not as a commodity but as a mandatory fee for modern life: commuting, heating, staying employed. That’s why the juxtaposition lands; energy costs are uniquely intimate, showing up at the pump like a public scoreboard.
Contextually, this is the post-shock politics of oil: geopolitical disruption, price spikes, and renewed arguments over whether “record profits” are savvy management or opportunism in a crisis. Schwartz aims to collapse that ambiguity. If profits soar while families strain, the market’s alibi starts to sound like a dodge.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Allyson
Add to List
