No.

What's fair to one is not fair to another. ("Paying your fair share" is one of my favorite political catch phrases!). Ask anyone involved in any court decision, civil or criminal. If such a scheme were introduced, the government could indeed reduce the price of oil. They could even make it free. BUT, this would also mean severe shortages, rationing coupons for all, and a huge black market (probably the largest ever seen in mankind) underground dealing in oil. It's that simple.

The congressman in question is merely making an appeal to gather votes and popularity with his constituents (as ALL politicians do naturally). Most likely his constituents are poor and uneducated that rely on the government for sustenance and who do not have a clue of basic free market economics.

Rick
#4 2006

Is anyone familiar with the term socialism?

With some things, transferring control to the government makes sense. With other things, it does not. Traditionally, things that are imperative to our society's stability and security have been run by the government. However, throughout American history, corporations have shown the government how they can do it better, more efficiently, and more cost effective. As a result, the government has handed over many industries to private companies. In the past, having oil exploration and supply chain run by private industry has had massive benefits. Competition between oil companies has led to massive improvement in efficiency and technology. So yes, commercialization has been very beneficial in the past.

However, if private companies cannot be trusted in a certain industry, or if national stability and security are compromised, then it is better for the government to be the operator. I have always felt that nuclear power plants should be run by the government only, as cost cutting resulting in unsafe equipment could result in disaster.

Although I do NOT see this as being the case right now with oil companies, if it brings our nation's economy, crippling to it's knees, then it will be an imperative for the government to step in and eliminate power from those who are causing harm (intentionally or unintentionally) to our nation. Currently, there has been talk in Congress about eliminating certain types of groups from trading in the oil markets. Although that is a regulatory move and not a governmentalization, it does show that the government is starting to move forward. Oil companies would be very wise to keep and eye on this.

Sounds so very unamerican, first it's the free market in oil and oil futures next it's you gun and your truck. Beware the thin edge of the wedge.

"Will all oil disappear?"
How does nationalization make ALL oil disappear?

It is the primary platform of the Democratic party. The funny part is that they can't say that or nobody would vote for them.

Most other countries actually call this type of political party the "Socialist Party", although each country/party has their own interpretations of socialism. Foreign politicians consider the US Democratic party as the equivalent of their Socialist Parties.

This is why a 3rd party is needed to bridge the extreme gap between socialists and border-line communists like Obama, and right-wing Republicans. McCain falls nearer the middle but is a little more socialist than he is Republican.

There may be a middle ground to this proposal that provides true market value of oil to consumers, rather than speculation influenced pricing.

There are many power companies, phone companies, cable, which are regulated by some entity whether it be state or local, I don't see any harm if oil is also regulated, however completely taken over by the government? No way.

Here's my biggest deal, and I'm basing this off Bush's speech about the need to drill. If we do drill and get oil, we don't "own" that oil because we lease those fields (and probably at dirt cheap rates like with every other damn oil field we've leased off public land because our lovely corrupt government got some kickback or something) and the oil companies end up selling that oil on the OPEN market at whatever the going rate is for oil. Even if they did only sell to US refineries it'll still be at that rate. It won't be enough to "flood the market" and bring the cost of oil down, it won't be enough put pressure on OPEC to lower rates or raise production to stay with their dominant slice of the pie. It'll do nothing except maybe help some trade deficit numbers a bit. Sure there was talk about the potential revenues that the government (state/local/fed) would get as a result but it won't do anything for Joe Consumer, he'll still pay that same high price for gas... and food... and everything else.

Now I think that oil should remain US oil, and the oil companies get a fraction of the cash per barrel that's drilled that's constantly being negotiated with the US (which will probably cave and bend over backwards to do also...) if anything it'll spur some competition, "OH you don't want to make 20 bucks per barrel? Ok we'll find someone who will".

You really should start putting your political posts in the correct forum. This is the second one on the same subject.

No.



... Brad

Actually that is wrong, this coming from a person that used to vote more Republican than Democrat, that was before Reagan. Democrats are more socially oriented, always have been, but have a very capitalistic and fiscal conservative core. The current Republicans are very much Socialists, only for foreigners, and very liberal towards spending on their friends. Its not the same old Republicans any more, its the fanatical religious Republicans who like to spend.

But yes we need a good third party.

Nationalizing the oil companies is not a good thing, fixing the trader situation is, even though oil is a commodity, its also the life blood of the economy of most of the world, it should not be subject to such ridiculous wild swings in price for no reason, and the oil companies shouldn't be allowed to manipulate price and supply to raise prices either.

Normally where there are 2 major parties they are so similar it is often hard to tell between them from outside. It becomes like this as the votes are chased, to get a majority you really can't be too radical.

If the oil companies where like small business that have to compete in the market or die, the government taking over would be one thing, but since they are so heavily subsidized and given huge tax breaks why shouldn't they be subject to greater government control. If they don't like it they could refuse government support an use their own ginormous profits to run their business.

Sad, that congress proves its ignorance so frequently ... as rationing never solved anything. Like bread lines in Russia. That mearly meant you had to wait for a long long time to get your bread. High prices more effectivly cuts consumption.

No ... we will never run out of oil, anymore than we'll ever run out of gold, that we could theoretically mine out of sea water. But as it takes more energy to GET the gold out of sea watter, we simply don't do it. Similary, fossle fuel will eventually take more than a barrel of energy to get a barrel of energy ... and at that point (not too far down the road), you simply don't waste your effort. Your government's plan to get us off the 'oil addiction' ... as bush calls it? Drill drill drill ... use up your kid's inheritance ... rather than find alternatives. Or drop the tax revenue, so you can buy more of the heroin you're addicted to. Oh, that's a great way to beat an addiction ... make it cheeper.

We're an oil IMPORTING country. Taking over the oil industry isn't going to make the Canadians, Venenzuelans, Mexicans, and Saudis sell us nine million barrels per day any cheaper than they are now. Sometimes I am ashamed by the idiocy of my own political party, this guy is almost as bad as Bush.

As for "drilling our way out": at this point any little bit will help. While I agree that we need alternative energies, in the meantime most americans need to drive to work and feed their families. Ruining the US economy and forcing americans to go bankrupt is an ignorant policy that is going to foster hatred and resentment of the democratic party in the long run. It's going to cost us the presidency this year, mark my words. Get used to the idea of President McCain.

Why not lease the ANWAR and continental shelf areas out to oil companies for a huge portion of the profits, and use the proceeds to fund Obama's "Renewable Energy Apollo Program"? That way we get more oil now, and a path to the inevitable future without oil.

I disagree!

I see a great deal of harm in government regulation with regards to the market. Regulation has only done harm to the markets of aviation, phone, cable, etc. Limited regulation does less harm, but nonetheless, stifles competition. You are probably young, but I remember the days of pretty much the one and only phone company, AT&T. Phone rates were exorbitant compared to todays rates. Service was terrible. Long distance was so expensive it was usually preceded by a long discussion by my parents whether we should make a long distance call to Aunt Martha to wish her a happy birthday.

In the days of airline regulation, flying was a luxury that only the wealthy could afford on regular basis. Now it costs little more than a bus ticket to fly anywhere in the states.

Phone service has been deregulated somewhat but still has a ways to go. Local governments are still the main roadblock for roll outs of competing phone, internet, television.

More regulation simply equals more taxes and bureaucracy and politicians who relish more and more tax revenue and ways to justify their jobs and staff are well aware of this fact. Tax an industry enough and it will be stifled or even go away.

Wouldn't be great if you as an individual with limited capital start your own electric company, your own phone company, or cable tv company. If your service was great you would be of great service to the community and create jobs. If your service was terrible, your customers would simply go to the better company. Why does the government (composed of mostly incompetent people) have to make these decisions for us??

Rick
#4 2006

Although your reply is sarcastic, quite frankly you are correct.

Europeans and Australians alike relish high levels of governmental intrusion in nearly every aspect of their lives.

Americans as a whole tend to be more independent minded and out of the box thinkers. With regards to space exploration, military technology, medical breakthroughs, standard of living, computing, America is the lead. One may note many of the worlds achievements have originated in America. It's not that we are inherently "smarter" than the rest of the world, it is simply our government and culture is set up to encourage (although I think it could be even better) such achievements.

Rick
#4 2006

A reduction in consuption would accomplish this goal MUCH better. There are so many ways we can do this and most of it is low-hanging fruit. Waste is all around us and it is sickening. No, drilling for more oil is not really a solution without solid plans to reduce consumption in place.

The problem isn't distribution. The problem is speculation in the oil futures price.
That is a new problem--brought on, apparently, by large American financial institutions suddenly buying heavily into oil futures--creating a lot of price volatility the World oil market cannot tolerate. Look at the food prices in your supermarket--everything is up 10-20%. Thank you, Merrill Lynch.
The Government has to step in, or inflation will go through the roof.
Lieberman is the only sensible voice I've heard so far in Washington. He wants to get the big financial companies out of commodities.

If you have questions about how well the government will operate the oil industry if it takes over, look at how the government runs the Veterans Hospitals. Same with nationalized medicine, education, and anything else the government sticks its fingers into. The U.S. used to have the best education system in the world. Then came the Dept. of Education; = forced bussing, mandatory passing percentages (don't have to know anything, just get out), teachers unions (because every time there was an increase in funding for education, it got sucked up by the "administrators" - those who can, do; those who can't, teach; those who can't teach, administrate). There is a reason the airlines and trucking companies had such a growth spurt over the past 20 years or so. It's call DE-REGULATION. The first thing politicians want to do when they take over something is "fix it" whether it's broken or not. Once they "fix it", it will never work right again. The second thing politicians want to do after they've "fixed it" is vote themselves a big raise - because they did such a great job "fixing it". History has also shown that every thing they "fix" has been a short term band-aid, that has let the covered sore fester and infect.

They also "fixed" the paper bag/tree situation by blessing us with plastic bags. Thirty years later, and look where we are! Animals eating and choking on them, land fills over flowing with plastic bags and over run with rats, plastic bags being found floating in the oceans thousands of miles from any shore.

Yeah, Congress will "fix it".
Keep them away.

Sorry about running on so long. They just really P me off.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.