House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries

reply to post by Alxandro


It's already begun. Personally, I think Mr Cheney probably has a nice condo in Dubai just waiting for his arrival.

reply to post by Maxmars

Originally posted by Maxmars


jsobecky:

Gov't does not belong in the business of owning any commerce.

And I agree. Nationalization does not mean commerce. In fact, almost everything that people claim is wrong with this government is BECAUSE of business and the influence of business within the public service sector. Military for the common defense isn't a business, but the government runs that, National Parks isn't a business but they run that too. In fact, the run a lot of things that businesses could easily lay claim to. Just because its nationalized doesn't mean it will be a business, BUT because it's nationalized you can't easily HIDE shady business practices and abuse or wanton profiteering at the expense of the national economic landscape.

Well, here I disagree. I feel that if we nationalize an industry such as oil, the gov't will ultimately begin to look at it as a revenue source. This is in addition to the fact that privatization is always more efficient than gov't control.

Originally posted by Maxmars
jsobecky:

Either you believe in capitalism and free markets, or you don't.

I cannot accept such absolutes. I hold that compromise is amongst the most important aspects of the American character. There MUST be a middle ground.

And I agree. What works best in a society of our size is a hybrid of private and public participation. I was merely talking philosophically.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I am not advocating socialism any more than you are advocating fascism. There is no 'all or nothing' in the world. That kind of thinking is for 'manifest destiny' advocates and imperialists. How can it come to pass that the resources of a land claimed by a people are 'outside' their ability to control? Who declared that America is now a servant of big oil? Will the free market suffer the loss of the ability to exploit oil, NO, big oil will. Is big oil THE free market? NO. they are a component of the energy combine that has been siphoning the wealth out of this country. Their investments were repaid long ago.

Well, let's look at two things.

First, profits. Exxon/Mobil made $36billion last year, but they also paid $27billion in Federal Income taxes. That's more than the bottom 100 million individual taxpayers in our country. So their profits, which are approx. in the 9% range, are not out of line.

Second, Exxon/Mobil is getting out of the retail business. They will sell all their gas stations to private owners. Reason: more profit on the "upstream" side of oil, ie, exploration.

So what, you say? Well, this can only benefit the consumer, if they discover new oil fields.

reply to post by Alxandro

Originally posted by Alxandro
Don't be surprised if big oil companies start moving their headquarters out of the country.
... what happens then?

Excellent point! Exxon/Mobil has already announced that it is getting out of the retail end of the business, so what would they be leaving behind? A few ancient refineries?

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Maxmars

 

Originally posted by Maxmars
I am not advocating socialism any more than you are advocating fascism. There is no 'all or nothing' in the world. That kind of thinking is for 'manifest destiny' advocates and imperialists. How can it come to pass that the resources of a land claimed by a people are 'outside' their ability to control? Who declared that America is now a servant of big oil? Will the free market suffer the loss of the ability to exploit oil, NO, big oil will. Is big oil THE free market? NO. they are a component of the energy combine that has been siphoning the wealth out of this country. Their investments were repaid long ago.

Well, let's look at two things.

First, profits. Exxon/Mobil made $36billion last year, but they also paid $27billion in Federal Income taxes. That's more than the bottom 100 million individual taxpayers in our country. So their profits, which are approx. in the 9% range, are not out of line.

Second, Exxon/Mobil is getting out of the retail business. They will sell all their gas stations to private owners. Reason: more profit on the "upstream" side of oil, ie, exploration.

So what, you say? Well, this can only benefit the consumer, if they discover new oil fields.

First part:

I don't think that the profit from oil pumped from beneath our feet should equate to the profit from having to get it from afar. I think that our local resources can support our normal levels of consumption, even more so if we diminish our rate of consumption, which should be a goal we hold to anyway.

I believe that if big oil won't invest in the effort, the government should - but if the government does, it should be a boon to the people of the country - not big oil. Corporatist thinking decries it as not profitable in the near term to be worth the investment. I say we then pump it ourselves and to hell with their profit, we are not their employees and we owe them no 'special' support in a time when this country was calling for relief and it just 'wasn't worth their while.'

In a world where money is debt, and becoming more virtual everyday, the citizens MUST fight to control and preserve their physical wealth, their natural resources, or we will be left with literally nothing.

Second:

I'm sorry. I am not being clear then. I don't believe that the local retail distribution network is guilty of profiteering at all. In fact, I know that the records indicate big oils profit is marginally appropriate for the circumstance. I am referring to the 'black hole' into which the wealth seems to be dissolving.
Or do you believe the current pricing structure and distribution is OK. I see it as an aberration.

I am particularly distressed that the Big Oil interests seem to behave as everything is OK, governments around the world are whining, but still, in a system where 'business' decisions are being taken, no one seems to want to explain where the wealth is going - and why.


[edit on 19-6-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Maxmars

Originally posted by Maxmars


First part:

I don't think that the profit from oil pumped from beneath our feet should equate to the profit from having to get it from afar. I think that our local resources can support our normal levels of consumption, even more so if we diminish our rate of consumption, which should be a goal we hold to anyway.

I believe that if big oil won't invest in the effort, the government should - but if the government does, it should be a boon to the people of the country - not big oil.
Corporatist thinking decries it as not profitable in the near term to be worth the investment. I say we then pump it ourselves and to hell with their profit, we are not their employees and we owe them no 'special' support in a time when this country was calling for relief and it just 'wasn't worth their while.'

If you're saying that domestic oil should be cheaper than foreign imported oil, then I agree.

Why are we not extracting more domestic oil? Because it is being blocked by certain politicians in Washington.

Originally posted by Maxmars

Second:

I'm sorry. I am not being clear then. I don't believe that the local retail distribution network is guilty of profiteering at all. In fact, I know that the records indicate big oils profit is marginally appropriate for the circumstance. I am referring to the 'black hole' into which the wealth seems to be dissolving.
Or do you believe the current pricing structure and distribution is OK. I see it as an aberration.

No I don't think current pricing structure is OK. Speculators have an undue influence; they can buy on a small margin, they are not required to take delivery. They make billions by shuffling paper. They are the main reason oil prices are so high.

The "Enron loophole" engineered by Phil Gramm needs to be closed, and quickly. Then the market will be able to react the way it should: to supply and demand.

The Federal government is not capable of running welfare, education, FEMA, Social Security - a balanced budget and just about anything else. Why would anyone think that they would do a decent job running the oil companies? If the history of the 20th century proves anything it is that socialism and communism are not effective ways of governing a country.

Democracy is not perfect - but it ain't too bad either. Compare our standard of living to anyone else.




[edit on 19-6-2008 by JOE64]

reply to post by maria_stardust


if they are already bedfellows, what's the difference?
i kinda like to think 'nationalisation' might bring some unforeseen surprises to the powers that be.

think 'fight club'.

I don't believe that nationalizing the oil is the first step. We should try to get rid of the speculators first. this is the real issue. That being said, I'd rather pay .14c vs $5.00 a gallon.

money.cnn.com...

reply to post by camain


Does anyone REALLY think gas will be cheaper nationalized? What motivation will they have to make it that cheap, knowing that we will pay higher prices? I don't see prices and expenditures coming down in any other sector do you?

Government Seizure


If you read this, I’m sure you can see the similarities to our current situation. How do you think the current Supreme Court would vote if the oil industry were substituted for the steel industry? Then, as today, we are engaged in a “war’, that’s not officially a war. Then as now, the government had some problems with “national security” due to interruption in the availability of a vital state interest. Think things could go differently this time and the Supreme Court decides oil can be seized? It may actually come to that and I’m sure this case will be referenced a lot if it does.

Originally posted by Question Fate
reply to post by camain

 

Does anyone REALLY think gas will be cheaper nationalized? What motivation will they have to make it that cheap, knowing that we will pay higher prices? I don't see prices and expenditures coming down in any other sector do you?

Well, not that this will happen - it's really a political contrivance to occupy the seat warmers we call representatives, but the real question is, if it WAS nationalized, who would 'set' the price? Right now price is set via magical incantations and astrological consultation (FOR ALL WE KNOW) by Wall-Street, the IMF, or some other non-accountable immune to oversight body.

Nationalization would mean that our 'representatives' would express our wishes and determine the most realistic price possible without losing money.
It would also mean that our nations voice would be the determining factor of when and how much would be extracted and refined. how much would go into reserve, what technology would be used, etc.

But it is a fantasy, because the resource no longer belongs to the people, we have no control, no voice, and are only a factor insofar as how much they can charge us without breaking our backs in the process - you know, same as it would be if you were driving a beast of burden.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Right now price is set via magical incantations and astrological consultation (FOR ALL WE KNOW) by Wall-Street, the IMF, or some other non-accountable immune to oversight body… Nationalization would mean that our 'representatives' would express our wishes and determine the most realistic price possible without losing money.
It would also mean that our nation’s voice would be the determining factor of when and how much would be extracted and refined. how much would go into reserve, what technology would be used, etc.

First. It’s called the free-market. That’s what should control prices. If you want something and there is a limited supply of it, you have to pay more. That’s why Rolexes cost more then Timexes. You may not think it fair but that’s the way it works. But the free-market isn’t the real culprit here because they have not been allowed to produce more. That’s why we are having a debate about opening up ANWAR and other areas. Congress is blocking the acquisition of the materials needed, thus creating scarcity, thus driving up prices. The price is artificially high because of the representatives that you cherish so highly. It’s not “realistic” because we are not producing all we can. And you want to give more control to the idiots that created the problem in the first place?

Second. If centralized control is such a great idea, how come it didn’t work so well in the Soviet Union? They controlled everything and – surprisingly – there were shortages of just about everything. If that system works so well, how come we didn’t see the Soviet Union exporting goods all over the world? Why? Because centralized control doesn’t work! If you haven’t seen enough proof of that yet, I don’t know how much more you need.


[edit on 20-6-2008 by passenger]

Originally posted by passenger

First. It’s called the free-market. That’s what should control prices.

So the free market doesn't exist now and that's why we are having problems, eh? Or it does, and we aren't having problems, right?

This free market is an illusion - that's the problem. The controls in place are there purposefully, the prices are as high as they are because THEY CAN BE. Not because they have to be. THAT'S your free market in action.

The free market WOULD work, if it weren't being manipulated by the magical pixies in profit land. Adequate supply is exists, the demand exists, the rest is propaganda.

But the free-market isn’t the real culprit here because they have not been allowed to produce more.

Who is not being 'allowed' to produce more? And 'who' is this power not 'allowing' it? Where is this invisible controller who makes the 'free market' say "How hi?" when it says "Jump!"

That’s why we are having a debate about opening up ANWAR and other areas.

No, the debate started when it became evident that the resources scarcity excuse was an outright lie. Suddenly, those in the know realized they could no longer pretend there was a shortage of oil. Now people are demanding an explanation as to why we must endure this artificial price gouging, and all sorts of new mathemagical excuses are being bandied about.

Congress is blocking the acquisition of the materials needed, thus creating scarcity, thus driving up prices.

Congress couldn't collectively block my 4-year olds' jump shot. They don't operate that way. Or haven't you been paying attention to recent history? What have they EVER blocked that interfered with corporate goals? They do as the party instructs them to do. They don't think on their own and they have no voice that is not scripted for them. Their actions are orchestrated by corporate interests, nothing more. (BTW these are generalizations, but in this case it is nonetheless true.)

The price is artificially high because of the representatives that you cherish so highly.

Have you read any of my posts before today? I don't think you have if you think I cherish these representatives. I cherish the representatives that the Constitution grants us citizens, what we have are little more than corporate whores.

It’s not “realistic” because we are not producing all we can.

Damn straight! And big oil will produce NO MORE because the return on their investment wouldn't be high enough! It's all about profit for them, it doesn't have to be for US. Boo hoo, poor oil companies will miss out. They are already dumping the retail distribution business, they are like rats leaving a sinking ship. If we pump it ourselves as a national infrastructure project they can claim NO injury.

And you want to give more control to the idiots that created the problem in the first place?

I wouldn't trust them to manage a school lunch program. But in their defense they are not the idiots who got us into this mess, they are the idiots who sold us out to the corporate interests so they could become rock star politicians! It was the corporate citizen who became the financial foundation of the political parties, leveraging their 'benefactor' status against hapless spoiled socialites who claim to qualify as politically viable candidates.

Second. If centralized control is such a great idea, how come it didn’t work so well in the Soviet Union? They controlled everything and – surprisingly – there were shortages of just about everything. If that system works so well, how come we didn’t see the Soviet Union exporting goods all over the world?

Their system was already broken when they set it up. A class-free society supposes that their are no privileged few. They started out with the same elitist mentality as our wealthy inteligencia has. Some were always "more equal' than others, thus cannot be questioned or challenged by the simple-minded citizens. Greed and power - just like here. NO OVERSIGHT AND NO ACCOUNTABILITY - just like here. Their failure simply showed that regardless of economic or political ideology, human failings can corrupt any ideal.

No system can work for the people if it hidden from them, centralized or not.

The point here is that IF the Constitution were honored and held as it is sworn to be by our leaders - we wouldn't be in this mess at all. But since the 'corporateers' have equated the 'free market' idea with 'patriotism' anything that threatens there ability to suck the wealth out of us is called one of the several dirty words, 'socialism', 'communism', etc.

The fix is in compromise. Not everything can be run by the government - this is absolutely true - the less the better - absolutely true! That NOTHING should be run by the government is a fallacy. Commercial interests have repeatedly shown us they can't be trusted with the common welfare of the citizen - it's really that simple. He who profits is the owner of a thing. The owner of a thing is always superior in dealing with the consumer - that's the problem with allowing the free market to govern a nation, instead of being an institution within the nation.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by passenger


First. It’s called the free-market. That’s what should control prices. If you want something and there is a limited supply of it, you have to pay more. That’s why Rolexes cost more then Timexes. You may not think it fair but that’s the way it works. But the free-market isn’t the real culprit here because they have not been allowed to produce more. That’s why we are having a debate about opening up ANWAR and other areas. Congress is blocking the acquisition of the materials needed, thus creating scarcity, thus driving up prices. The price is artificially high because of the representatives that you cherish so highly. It’s not “realistic” because we are not producing all we can. And you want to give more control to the idiots that created the problem in the first place?

How Free is it when you have a government that back stops you and takes out any risks there are. Here you need a country to drill oil in well invade one for you. Here you want to go find other resources here we will give you the money to do it. Times are hard here take some more subsidize. The fact is the oil industry already is nationalized the government does all the work and pays for it with MY money and the CEOs and Execs get all the benefits. Hows that for free market?

Second. If centralized control is such a great idea, how come it didn’t work so well in the Soviet Union? They controlled everything and – surprisingly – there were shortages of just about everything. If that system works so well, how come we didn’t see the Soviet Union exporting goods all over the world? Why? Because centralized control doesn’t work! If you haven’t seen enough proof of that yet, I don’t know how much more you need.


[edit on 20-6-2008 by passenger]

The Soviet Union crashed because they spent all their money on military and nothing on their people and eventually the floor crashed from under them. Its happened since then in a country called the USA where the government spends most of the money on the military complex and not on things like infrastructure. Soon the floor will crash from under us and we the people will have to pay for it. I agree with you strong central governments should not exist but oil is a national security issue and the central government should handle it and if it is us who pay for it with money and lives then the benefits should go to us instead of big oil execs.

Quite a few countries own their oil companies... Mexico for one. And remember that Mexico's oil company was so well managed that they were able to pay off the loans Clinton gave them well ahead of time... with interest. And, given the nature of America's slavery to oil who would you rather control it, CEO's of publically held companies out to make a profit, the people be damned, or the government?

I personally believe that certain key national resources should not be controlled by for profit companies... Remember the energy crisis in California in 2001? Everyone swore it was an issue of supply and demand when in reality they were being Enroned.

I maintain that the current oil crisis is the same sort of thing.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by grover]

reply to post by grover


Star for you. Some people honestly believe that business is everything. They fear the government. I say treat the government as you would a unbroken horse. MAKE it bend to YOUR will, or it will never be yours. Fear is the enemy of reason.

I propose that it is possible to structure a policy that would benefit the entire American community, such as it is, by providing equal unhindered access to the resources they own by virtue of citizenship.

The commercial code, needs to be addressed at the constitutional level. 'Corporate' citizenship should be unconstitutional. That which is the privilege of the government to control is granted by the people of this nation, and no other. Accountability is NOT political. The law belongs to and is subject to the people (as a nation) not the other way around. Every individual is subject to the law, the law is subject to will of all.

reply to post by Maxmars


There comes a point where the national good by necessity has to trump private gain... in other terms there is a point where individual rights must give way to the needs of community and a point where issues of community must concede to individual rights.

Socialism has been made into a great big boogie man but when you actually look at it only a handful of nations adopted the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Mao model... the vast majority of so-called socialist countries are nothing of the sort. They are capitalist nations with a socialist style of safety net for their people and/or they control key resources for the national good.

I hope they do nationalize the oil industry.

Ihen the government can pay me my retirement

This company i worked for (kerr Mcgee) split off what was left of the non oil part of the company.
now called Tronox.
I believe this was so that part could die and go bankrupt and not have to pay the retirement of there ex employees

All while raking in large profits in the oil part.

Also the people still working in the oil field that i know like the idea because they plan to go on strike as soon as it is nationalized so they can get a part of the profits the oil companies have been raking in.

The oil companies have collected all the profits but just gave pennies to there employees in raises.

The democrats being so stupid would have to give in to the unions.
Or shut down the whole US.
Then no unions would ever trust the democrats again.

funny how things work out.

reply to post by yellowcard


Oh and the "free market" has got us lots of new construction projects for refineries! Yeah right it has. In 30 years there has been one application to build a new one. One. I say regulate, and while their at it, regulate the airline industry and reverse the madness. There's so much mythology associated with the term "free market". When it comes to infrastructure, it's like playing the slots except nobody wins ever, except those who own the slots.

reply to post by mybigunit


With all respect, government control is NOT the answer. Part of the problem is that drilling offshore and ANWAR has bee blocked. And the oil companies are obliged to go out into the global market to buy oil with a weakened dollar. And government obstructionism makes the cost of building new refineries prohibitive. To say nothing of government obstruction of the most viable alternative energy source, nuclear power. As for elected officials, I am sure most assume office with the best of intentions. But the corporate culture in Congress and elsewhere is irredeemably corrupt. They are not there to serve our interests. They are parasites gorging themselves and their families from the public purse. CEO's eventually can be called to account but the shareholders. Oil company shareholders is US! That is, if yuou have a pension or a mutual fund or any kind of retirement investment. And government can have a supervisory role, but they cannot be allowed to have direct control over the oil refineries.