Nationalization of oil industry

Forwardassist,
I owe you an apology in regard to the statement about Democrats being in the pocket of oil companies. I was distracted by a phone call while reading your post and read incorrectly. In regard to Hillary's health plan, I listened to her make the statement that her plan would be paid for by a $900.00 surcharge placed on each person having private insurance. Anytime the government runs a program it always cost more than the equivalent private sector program. I am not a George Bush fan and being a Vietnam vet I disagreed with his invasion of Iraq, not because I'm anti-war but because I felt it wasn't our job to put Hussein in his place. I also don't listen to the far right commentators like Rush. I am moderate to conservative in my politics. I think a big problem with commentators today is their inability to stop injecting their own political beliefs into their reporting. I think that tendency started when Walter Cronkite voiced his opposition to the Vietnam War on the Nightly News. Tim Russert was liberal leaning; however, that did not keep him from being fair in his interviews. At least we are calmly discussing these things which is more than usually happens in Washington.
 
+1 oldredneck on Kennedy`s car:D. "Nationalization of the oil industry", Wonder if this will be a hostile or peacefull takeover:confused:. Probably peaceful cause they`ll have our guns already:eek:
 
Yes, nationalizing industries is a terrible idea, I have no doubts in that regard.

The market does depend on healthy competition for certain. Competition breeds excellence and fairness.
Click to expand...

Here we have a problem that all of you posting in favor of private companies and free markets have overlooked.

There is not a free market in the oil industry. There is an informal oil cartel. Anti collusion laws aside do you ever see the major fueling stations have disparate pricing?

625px-Big_Oil.svg.png


It is not a free market it is an Oligopoly.

The Sherman Act (anti-trust law)
"Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine....

Section 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine...."

Of course proving they conspire is another matter and why would congress want to anger major campaign donors.
 
The oil industry is already nationalized.

If by "nationalized" you mean they make up and control the government of this nation. The oil company owns probably the largest single share of senators, congressmen, governors, and (at the moment) even vice presidents and presidents.
 
The oil company owns probably the largest single share of senators, congressmen, governors, and (at the moment) even vice presidents and presidents.
Click to expand...

Right. And just which "oil company" would that be ?
 
Right. And just which "oil company" would that be ?
Click to expand...
Which one wouldn't it be? That would be a better way to ask that question. Maybe the ones that donate tons of money into campaigns, free give-aways for politicians, or get huge hand outs in the form of massive tax incentives and government funded capital expenditures.
 
Don't forget, the oil companies pay 42% corporate taxes on their net income. As far as ownership goes, we are all owners of the oil companies, everybody that has stock in the stock market, 401k's, mutual funds, ect. This is the stuff you never hear from our parrot press corps who is in Obama's pocket.
 
Don't forget, the oil companies pay 42% corporate taxes on their net income. As far as ownership goes, we are all owners of the oil companies, everybody that has stock in the stock market, 401k's, mutual funds, ect. This is the stuff you never hear from our parrot press corps who is in Obama's pocket.
Click to expand...
I know Rush loves to say that, but would you like to talk about what percentage of Americans actually have any sizable investment in those markets that are tied directly to big oil? He always fails to mention any real numbers.

PS: Remember when you talk about tax rate that is their tax rate before paybacks, shelters, and adjustments at years end. That is like me saying I paid $40,000 in taxes last year. Which in a way I did since the amount I put aside in my tax account based on my tax rate totaled about that amount...but after all was said and done at the end of the year I got quite a bit of that back.

PPS: Like I tell my father and law when he bitches about the amazingly high amount of money he pays in taxes I remind him that he actually paid a slightly smaller percentage than I did so the fact that his overall payment was many times higher is not a sign of some unfair treatment...it is a sign he made a ton of money.
 
Know someone invested in a mutual fund? If yes then the odds are pretty good you know somene invested in the oil companies.

---

But... as for examples of why the private sector is better than the public I give you the comaprison between the private sector a la FedEx, UPS, and DHL and the public sector a la USPS. Of note is that while the government mandates its own use of the USPS in many instances in important ones it mandates private sector contracts.
 
OK, according to your little chart, the 6 oil companies there had total sales of $1.582 Trillion and made a profit of $135.5 Billion. Using your numbers, that is a profit of 8.56% of sales.

Hardly gouging.
 
Deflection

The furor over oil prices and blaming the ”greedy, evil“ oil companies is a smoke screen for failed Democrat policies.

First, held captive by eco-terrorists, the Dems have halted any development of nuclear power plants for over 35 years. Liberal, enlightened France did not stop building nuclear power plants, and today, over 80% of France's electric power is generated by nuclear power plants. Had the Dems not stopped nuclear power plants in the US, we could be at the same level of France, or more. Read the bumper sticker, ”Teddy's car has killed more people in the US than nuclear plants.“ Kennedy was a primary factor in this self-destructive behavior.

Second, Dems, again abetted by eco-terrorists, have prevented drilling of US oil that may be equal to, or greater than, Mideast oil reserves. Their rationale? Oil derricks endanger beaches and the ecology. How many oil derrick disasters can you remember? How many disasters from oil freighters? So, follow the ”logic“ here. It is better to pay the Mideast cartel astronomical prices for the oil, load it on freighters and ship it the US. You figure this out, I can't.

Finally, we have not built any new oil refineries for over 35 years. Why? Take a guess. The Dems and the eco-terrorists. So, even if the supply of crude were increased, our capacity to process it has been crippled by the Dems.

So, when you hear about the nationalization of oil companies, which has been suggested by more than just wacko Maxine Waters, consider the Dems abysmal track record on energy policy so far. By the way, if wind power is so promising, why did Teddy bar the
construction of a wind power generating plant in Massachusetts? And, I don' t think it was concern over beaning sea gulls.

Blaming the oil companies is a smoke screen by Dems, don't be foolish enough to believe their nonsense.
 
First, held captive by eco-terrorists, the Dems have halted any development of nuclear power plants for over 35 years.
Click to expand...

Hilarious (even leaving aside the Limbaugh rhetoric, where every person who has ever spent time outdoors is an "eco-terrorist")!

The facts are of course different. Anyone interested in facts should check out the 2005 Energy Act, passed with bipartisan support, which includes broad provisions designed to encourage the building of nuclear plants.

Second, Dems, again abetted by eco-terrorists, have prevented drilling of US oil that may be equal to, or greater than, Mideast oil reserves. Their rationale? Oil derricks endanger beaches and the ecology.
Click to expand...

Not sure where this notion comes from that the US reserves are greater than the Middle East's (this would be news to the oil companies and their petroleum geologists -- maybe somebody should shoot them an e-mail).

It's also a mystery how the "eco-terrorists" (can't help but smile when you hear that one) controlled the GOP Congress and President for 6 years, either. They also got to Jeb Bush down in Florida too, apparently. Did they take some family members hostage, do you think?

Finally, we have not built any new oil refineries for over 35 years. Why? Take a guess. The Dems and the eco-terrorists. So, even if the supply of crude were increased, our capacity to process it has been crippled by the Dems.
Click to expand...

This is more talk-radio blather. For a nice analysis of the actual facts check out the Cato Institute's piece, "High Pump-Price Fairy Tales." (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/taylor-050603.html) Here's the bottom line from these free-market analysts, about the above refinery canard:

It's a convenient story line for the Right. Unfortunately, the narrative is wrong.
Click to expand...

Facts are pesky things, eh?
 
Facts are pesky things, eh?
Click to expand...

So, state one. Just saying ”nuh-uh“ and dissing talk radio hosts is not really stating facts.

Let me give you a fact. Nearly every Dem you hear says the same tired talking point, ”We can't drill our way out of this.“ Oh, no? So, how do we increase supply? Or, do we tell the millions of commuters they will have to walk to work? Or, do we do the Jimmy ”Peanuts“ Carter thing and tell them to get a sweater. Or, how about Nancy ”Give me a Jet“ Pelosi and Harry ”Whiny“ Reed, who promised the American people in 2006, that if, they would just elect Dems, they would fix all the problems. Seems that they failed on this promise also. Things have gotten worse since '06.

But, the only good part of the Dems' intransigence is that the American public are showing signs of waking up to the incredible failure of their ideas, and may, just may, throw out those who are responsible for the shortfall.

FULL DISCLOSURE - I am a devout Independent, just sick of Democrat's lies and mismanagement.
 
No, sir. I suggest you go back and read my post, where I stated 3 simple facts. The only one you refuted with a fact was the 2005 Energy Act. And, you actually prove my point with this. It was 30+years that the Dems blocked nuclear power plant construction. That, sir, is a matter of history. It was not until 2005 that they finally came to their senses.

Just for the record, do you deny:

1) That the Dems blocked nuclear plant construction until 2005,
2) That the Dems have blocked drilling in ANWR? (Remember, Clinton, who vetoed the bill allowing exploration, was reportedly a Dem.)
3) That the Dems have blocked construction of new refineries.

These are facts, my friend, and irrefutable. But, you know, it doesn't matter what I think or even what you think, what matters is what the voters think in November. And, right, now they are 2/3 in favor of drilling, which nearly every Dem has said they are against. And, the public ain't buying the talking point of evil oil companies causing the problem.

Finally, I agree that name calling is silly, but I have heard 7 1/2 years of Dems calling Bush, ”stupid,“ ”Incurious,“ ”incompetent“ and ”evil.“ And, these are facts. Go look up Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Kucinich and so on, and so on. Payback can be painful.
 
First, held captive by eco-terrorists, the Dems have halted any development of nuclear power plants for over 35 years.
Click to expand...
Hilarious (even leaving aside the Limbaugh rhetoric, where every person who has ever spent time outdoors is an "eco-terrorist")!

The facts are of course different. Anyone interested in facts should check out the 2005 Energy Act, passed with bipartisan support, which includes broad provisions designed to encourage the building of nuclear plants.
Click to expand...

You have NOT answered the allegation.
For 35 years the dems have done many things to block nuclear power.
Now in 2005 they decide that maybe they should support it.

How long do you think it takes to design, build, and start up a nuclear power plant?

I have thought for years that no members of congress should not be seated until they pass the 'dog house' test.

They are given a set of plans, tools, and materials and have to actually build
a dog house.
They will need to estimate the time required before starting.

It would be very amusing.:D
 
The only 'plan' I see for solving our energy problems coming out of congress and from the oil companies is that the oil companies buy oil at the maximum market price and then sell it to us at maximum price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top