Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:

Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong

by: Mike Steinhardt June 10, 2008 | about stocks: COP / CVX / RDS.A / XOM    

Mike Steinhardt

About this author:
Become a Contributor Submit an Article
  • Font Size:
  • Print

Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) suggested that unless oil execs promised to lower gas prices in exchange for drilling wherever they want - she would make it the duty of “this liberal” (her) for “basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.” She said “socializing” - she meant “nationalizing.” Neither are good. Please click here to watch the video. Unlike the other Congress members laughing in the background of that video, I don’t find it funny. Unlike many Americans who increasingly want a socialist country, I find Representative Waters and her concepts on solving the energy crisis to be extremely dangerous.

Venezuela nationalized its oil industry over the last few years - they have more oil reserves than we do. Click here for summary of global reserves and look where the US sits. Many countries with the most reserves have nationalized oil industries. Some of those countries are actually drilling wherever they want. And some countries are actually finding some new oil every once in a while. With all that, you might think that oil would be free. And yet, somehow it escapes Rep. Waters and anyone like her to understand that nationalizing oil has not lowered global oil prices. Doing so in the US with our relatively low level of oil reserves is ridiculous - we are a “drop in the bucket” or if you prefer, a “bucket in the barrel” when it comes to affecting world oil supplies.

But let’s just play along with her concept for a while. Let’s say she and her socialist friends in government would take over. Wouldn’t that be fun?

First of all, let’s look at the financial consequences. Let’s say that the taxpayers would pay market prices for the top oil companies and pay off their debts - for XOM, CVX, and COP - that would be about $900 billion to $1 trillion to nationalize. If this means that oil prices and those pesky “excessive windfall profits” would decline, then the US taxpayer would be overpaying for assets and cash flows at their peak for an industry that the socialists want to put entirely out of business. HMMM?

What a waste of money not to mention what would happen to the loss of our entire ability to have confidence in ever investing in any US business. And let’s remember that the US oil industry is just a part of the global energy industry. That means we’d have to renege on commitments to foreign companies who have drilling rights in US territory or compensate them for taking those as well.

Please remember that much of the “obscene windfall profits” of the 5 oil companies interrogated by Congress came from outside the US. So does much of the exploration and production of those companies. If their businesses were nationalized, the new US national oil company would be restricted to current US production and revenues and we’d have to get rid of the non-US operations just as we would have to kick out the non-US companies operating here. As a result, we would almost certainly end up in a serious shortage situation. That should do a number on foreign investment in the US. And what about all the other companies.

I know Congress only wants to blame the biggest 3 US oil companies. But how about the drillers and other oil service companies or the independent refiners or the pipelines? What would we do to nationalize the retail network which also includes a bunch of small businesses that operate the local gas station? Financially, we are now in the trillions for this nationalizing program. And if you say, we shouldn’t pay fair market prices then our entire financial system is screwed more than it already is.

In the end, the US dollar - it would be worth less than worthless. Oh and never mind the inflation that would result. Yep inflation - sadly making gas is not free and even if you price it at nationalized prices - we will have shortages and inflation in other products. Just check examples like Venezuela. I know socialist dream worlds suggest that there are no negative consequences for nationalizing industries, but you might want to read this article.

A few more ridiculous points about this ridiculous idea - if the socialist US government would run the oil industry, where would they allow themselves to drill? Do they know precisely where the oil lies? If so, would they just tell us now? If there is no way to drill in an environmentally responsible manner in ANWR or the continental shelf or Florida or wherever else, then what would the socialists do to increase supply? Do Rep. Waters and the other socialists know how to explore, drill, transport, refine, and distribute oil in a sterile manner? If so, could they save the planet and just tell us now? Finally, by what mechanism do they plan to do all the work of the industry without having to raise taxes to pay for it, with or without 10% profit margins they call “obscene” and “excessive”?

Maybe you can watch Rep. Waters and feel comforted that she cares about the effects of high gas prices on her voters and Americans in general. I do not doubt that her feelings are genuine and well intentioned. They just happen to be wrong and dangerous. Like many socialist ideals - these good intentions are ignorant of all the complexities and interdependent relationships that would result.

Related Articles

This article has 64 comments:

  •  
    Jun 10 04:56 AM
    Maxine Waters is about as well intentioned as Joseph Stalin.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 05:36 AM
    1. Enron
    2. Amaranth
    3. BP
    4. Investment Banks/Hedge Funds???
    5. ...next year???
    6. Peak Oil Sooners???

    What do you do to control the inevitable recurring manipulation in the energy market?

    If not nationalized - broken up, heavily regulated, and more heavily taxed to help fund and develop alternatives.

    The next president needs to fund and build a huge new energy infrastructure - solar, wind, and hydrogen. The oil trade deficit bleeds $450,000,000+/year now. Why not spend at least $1 trillion on this new energy infrastructure over the next 10 years?
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 05:58 AM
    It's easy to refute her so-called argument, and you did a good job. Your point about an "increasing" number of Americans wanting a "socialist" solution is valid, especially if we replace "socialist" with what that might actually happen in the current political environment (assuming we don't have a revolution)--taxing the rich (corporation) to pay off the less fortunate.

    Of course, and I don't mean to get off on a tangent here, but who should we blame for awakening the untamed beast of populism? I think the Idiot Son and the war in Iraq is probably a good place to start, but maybe also Slick shares some blame, especially his move to eliminate welfare.

    The consequences of a real "worker's revolution" in America would be dramatic and severe (the probability is small, I grant) so I just want to ask all the traders out there, don't you think a decent, or even minimal, social safety net a great hedge against this kind of political risk?

    Why sell that downside put? Is the extra premium from saving money on the safety net worth the (small) chance that hoards of angry, hungry, desperate people will march in the streets? That people who have just lost their homes and jobs, who have lost their retirement savings because of the deflating of the tech or housing bubble, who have nowhere to go and no one to turn to, aren't you worried they might vote for dramatic change? Or worse?
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 06:08 AM
    Legalize government purchase of common stock. Let government invest in national companies.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 06:28 AM
    I meant $450 billion+/year, not $450 million in oil imports added deficit.
    "The oil trade deficit bleeds $450,000,000+/year now."

    I also think the government should add a national gas tax of $1/gallon. This would take off a dollar from the speculators...and put it into the governments hands to fund energy alternatives.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 07:03 AM
    The US has the SOP for national interests and shoud natanalize NEW oil discoveries and exploration. XOM pays no royalties for oil it pumps from the gulf as it racks up huge profits and dosent even pay it out to shareholders only buys back its own stock. The US can contrack out drilling etc but keep its reserves for the people.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 08:35 AM
    Well, gee. I think the USPS works pretty well. And postage has been inflating more slowly than gas prices.

    "First of all, let’s look at the financial consequences. Let’s say that the taxpayers would pay market prices for the top oil companies and pay off their debts"

    No problem. Most oil drilling is on Federal lands, I think. Just take back those assets.

    And the oil co. coffers would go a long way towards easing our federal deficit.

    I think nationalization makes WAY more sense than letting private companies have so much sway over common resources.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 08:45 AM
    I love the "extreme binary choice" form of argument--either we have a libertarian system, or we're basically Cuba. So helpful in framing the issues! Thanks!

    If Maxine Waters scares you, you are a dolt. She represents the fringe point of view of the Democratic party, and holds little power to push her views onto the country. She does provide handy scary sound-bites for Republicans to exploit, though! At least she's good for something!
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 08:54 AM
    Maxine Walters is a well known idiot and probably one of the least intelligent in Congress, which is saying a lot. In a group made of the most mediocre "executives" in the world, she shines as the worst. The fact that the American people continue to re-elect such morons to Government never ceases to amaze me. The older I get, the more demoralized I become about our Political situation. Having to vote for the least "worst" of the candidates election after election makes one wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a benevolent, but intelligent dictator.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 08:58 AM
    Why stop with oil? Why not nationalize the car industry. And the farming industry. and the chemical industry. and the stock market. Oh yeah, how about Microsoft and Google? their profits are much higher on a percentage of revenue than XOM's!

    And to the know-nothing who stated that XOM pays no royalty on oil pumped from the gulf, you sir are completely wrong. They pay large royalties on most of the oil pumped from the gulf as do other operators. Only some of the newest leases in the deepest of waters have roylaty provisions that reduce the royalty to overcome the technological advances needed to produce the oil. Without those royalty holidays, there would be no exploration in the deepest waters.

    Maxine Waters and a few other politicians are poster children for contraception! Friends don't let friends procreate!
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 10:24 AM
    USPS? Do you REALLY think they can compete against a UPS and/or FedEx WITHOUT all of the taxpayer subsidy? Do you really believe that with a LEVEL playing field, the USPS offers the "best" solution to get your mail where it needs to go when you need it there? Come on.....There's a REASON their "costs" haven't risen - it's called our NATIONAL DEBT. They're simply another line item in a "budget" that spends more than the revenue coming in to offset it. Instead of talking about nationalizing oil, we should be talking about PRIVATIZING things LIKE the USPS, Social Security and the list goes on. We're in the mess we're in because the Federalis refuse to allow the free market to work. What causes "bubbles?" Market speculation? Hardly....Try all the "stimulus" that the Federalis keep throwing into the market. Yes, market corrections ARE painful but it is necessary to flush out the excesses. Come on...There is no "free" lunch.....
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 10:38 AM
    Well GatorTrader there may be no "fee" lunch but there are a multitude of over paid oil execs. As I recall the USPS lost all their subsidies about 15 years ago but lets look at the subsidies that the agro-business enjoys and the ability of Halliburton and others to move their Corporate offices off shore and pay no taxes-yeah, nationalizing oil look like a good idea-you think the xons and Bps of this world are not making record profits, why couldnt the Government do the same? The experienced and skilled people of the oil industry are not going to quit and start selling pencils on the street just because their checks are coming from the Government instead of some oil company.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 10:48 AM
    If you remember Bill Clinton beat George Bush the 1st with one expression: "Its the Economy, Stupid!"

    Well it not the ECONOMY, "Its ENERGY, Stupid!" and Americans have finally realized their gasoline highs are costing them an arm and a leg, not to mention their jobs, savings, and livlihoods..

    The formula is simple: ENERGY=ECONOMY! No Energy...No Economy...No Employment...No Earnings...

    As stupid as "W" appears, he understands this and he and his BIG OIL buddies are making hay with a cut, slash, and run exit strategy, that will in all probability lead to a massive, dare I say it... DEPRESSION!!!
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 10:50 AM
    "And the oil co. coffers would go a long way towards easing our federal deficit."

    Hey, Moron. The government already gets vastly more of oil revenues thorugh taxes than the companies get in profits. Federal, State, and local governments get over 30% of revenues and the oils companies get anywhere from 8 to 12% profits.

    The problem is SPENDING! Every senator and representative wants to buy votes by promising some new social spending program with their name on it. And they do stupid things like paying ILLEGAL immigrants welfare and health benefits, though they all pay little or no income taxes, because they claim 7 dependents and have no withholding. And we build bridges to nowhere, and bike paths and unused rail lines, and any number of wasteful spending projects to impress voters and buy their votes.

    Get the government out of the buisness of deciding by fiat who wins and loses and you'll have lower prices and more product. Get them out of the business of spending vast sums of money they have to steal by gunpoint from productive Americans and there will be no deficit to cover by more appropriations from you and me (who ulitmately pay the taxes that corporations transfer to the government).
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 10:57 AM
    "USPS? Do you REALLY think they can compete against a UPS and/or FedEx WITHOUT all of the taxpayer subsidy? "

    USPS is self-supporting.

    "The problem is SPENDING! "

    One man's "spending" is another man's "investment"... I don't think private industry is any more efficient, on average, than government.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 11:02 AM
    Scott M, I am not sure who the "moron" is, yes the Government received a lot of tax revenue from oil but they could just as well receive the taxes as well as the profits.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 11:04 AM
    "The experienced and skilled people of the oil industry are not going to quit and start selling pencils on the street just because their checks are coming from the Government instead of some oil company."

    But htey will stop being so productive when they're in government jobs with no accountability for productivity as most government jobs are. And when the governement caves in to the unions who want everything but want to give nothing in return hike wages far beyond what the market would bear, prices will go up, productivity will go down, prices will go up, or government spending will go up to cover it.

    Plus when the oil boogeyman is slain, then the government, er envious, ignorant, liberal activists will set their sights on some other boogeyman industry to vilify, appropriate, and start the cycle over again. It's been done many times in history and always fails.

    There is nothing "Progressive"... about socialist thought. It's been tried and failed many times over.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 11:10 AM
    Barnburner. When government runs anything they do not earn profits. They sustain loses. They will fleece the golden goose until it's dead or dying. When the economy collapses because government runs a productive business into the ground, there will be no profit because costs will exeed the revenue.

    Once government takes the step toward socializing one part of the economy, they will think they can do the rest to the remainder of the economy and you get a Soviet Union, East Germany, Venezuela, name any number of totalitarian dictatorships in which freedom evaporates and government dictatorship tramples the "people" that the liberals say they're trying to "help".

    If you believe government knows best, then move to Cuba and enjoy the fruits of government bounty.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 11:24 AM
    Barnburner: I almost hate to respond to your nonsense but here goes:

    You said "...the ability of Halliburton and others to move their Corporate offices off shore and pay no taxes..."

    Guess what doodle head? Halliburton did move their offices to Dubai but they did not move their CORPORATION to Dubai. It is still in the U.S. and STILL PAYS CORPORATE TAXES. Why don't you do a small amount of research before spouting your marxist crap???

    Now, if the US decides to nationalize, I can assure you that the assets that are leased by XOM, COP, etc in other countries will not be a part of the deal. Would be interesting to see the US Gov't try and expropriate foreign assets. But hey, when you marxists dream, you dream big. I guess thats why so many folks are buying into Obama's "Change" BS. When the majority of the voting public pay no taxes and can elect people who will confiscate the earnings and profits of the minority, we are clearly on our way down the tube.

    And finally, as someone who works in the oil industry for the Big Bad Evil Oil, I can tell you that government takeover will lead to mass-retirements. Or would your comrades freeze the freedom of individuals to not work as well? What's next? Gullages in northern Montana?
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 11:31 AM
    Exxon's gross profits are distributed thusly: 1/3 goes to government taxes ($30 Billion corporate tax last year alone), 1/3 is returned to shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks, 1/3 goes in their pocket. Add in all the income tax paid by ExxonMobil employees and the federal government profits far, far more than than XOM itself. To the tune of >$40 Billion a year...from one company. Building and running the largest, most efficient integrated oil company in the world requires expertise earned through decades of competing against the best in the world, and enormous amounts of capital, all of which is raised in the free, open capital markets. XOM's profits are destributed to the public in the most democratic fashion available. Anyone can buy into their business. For 5 years I put $150/month into Exxon 15 years ago when I started working. I could have blown it in the clubs or bought a new car and I might be whining with the other socialists now. Maxine Waters and her socialist ilk are like children with guns. They are dangerous and must be controlled, but I can't help but feel sorry for them. They're so confused and the world is a difficult place for them. By the way, XOM does pay dividends, quite healthy in fact. Oh, and I pay taxes on those, too.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 11:31 AM
    "One man's "spending" is another man's "investment"... I don't think private industry is any more efficient, on average, than government."

    Well, that's about the most idiotic comments I've seen on here yet. LOL.

    Government spending is anything but investment. There is no accountability for earning a return on the investment. There is no expectation of earnings, because it's simply a give-away for the quid pro quo of votes. There is no efficiency in operations to earn a profit, there is little value in what government invests in, because people value little of what government provides, beyond basic services.

    And when governments own businesses with a profit motive, their earnings have to be the same as a private business in order to raise capital. And when you raise capital, there has to be a return on capital to attract investment. And when a business says they're not in it for profit, they attract no investment and cannot run the company. Anyone who thinks socialism is more effective than capitalism is either smoking too much pot, or they want us to return to the 1500's style of living.

    Government exists to keep order in society, not mold society to what it's short-sighted, dogmatic leaders want. Or it should exist only for that reason. When you let pliticians of all stripes try to social engineer, you get unintended consequences largly worse than the disease they sought to cure.

    And when government fails, do they cease what they were doing, or do they keep trying harder to do what failed in the first time by spending more money and ruining more lives? It's the latter. Then you end up in socialism that has to get thrown off in violent revolution.

    Keep the politicians out of our lives. Keep government in the business of protecting basic freedoms and the millions of individual humans will live better lives and make better personal and business decisions than Ivy League bureaucrats will.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 11:40 AM
    Certainly nationalizing the refiners makes sense. The Gov requirements, through EPA, on these folks are way to imposing and forcing most into bankruptcy. Folks talk about building more refinary capacity and that's just crazy. The ones we currently have aren't surviving and when the refiner bankruptcies hit they'll be gasoline shortages all over the country.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 11:47 AM
    No nationalizing! Under any pretense! Just let oil companies drill. If you want lower oil prices, press OPEC. And investigate oil trading, there is something fishy going on there.

    But, I repeat, no nationalizing or socializing!
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 12:14 PM
    If you think Maxine Waters is clueless, spend a little time listening to Obama. He makes her sound like a P.H.D.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 12:31 PM
    Ask the senate how their nationalized cafeetria system did.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 12:50 PM
    The government already controls access to oil via bureau of land management and its lease auctioning process which the environmentalists are seeking to stop. Govenrment is the fundamental problem not the solution. And anyone who says nationalizing anything is a good idea is an enemy of this country.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 01:06 PM
    It was pointed out in the article, but bears repeating - the majority of big oil companies' profits (from production) comes from outside the US. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% from what I remember reading elsewhere.

    Nationalization would just result in the most profitable part of big oil becoming a separate, forgeign company. So barnburner's comment:

    "they could just as well receive the taxes as well as the profits. "

    is far from the truth. In realtity, the govenment would not get the profits from the (newly) foreign company's assets, but they'd lose the taxes on those profits as well.

    And as for the experienced personnel needed to run the oil industry? Well, lets just say alot of those jobs aren't exactly glamorous - people do them because the money is good. Last I checked, government workers weren't exactly at the top of the pay scale. So now, you've compounded the already existing problem of a large part of the workforce nearing retirement age by taking away a major incentive (pay) for new workers to enter or stay the field.

    Nationalization is such a ridiculous idea, I can't believe I spent even this much time talking about it.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 01:09 PM
    Thank you for this article!! When I watch what is going on in Congress I think we are the really stupid ones for electing these people. We have GOT to get behind term limits on these people. We need someone in there that knows and or remembers what life outside of the beltway is like!!!
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 01:14 PM
    Agree with most comments. What's really pathetic is politicians like Dick Durbin sanctomoniously trying to put the big bad oil cos on a guilt trip with his irrelevant and idiotic question, "Don't you care what you are doing to the American people?" No, Sen. Durbin. When trying to fix blame for this fiasco you don't have to look any further than your own mirror. It is YOU and your idiotic colleagues on Capitol Hill that has caused this mess. Not the oil companies. Not the speculators. Not the hedge funds. You and your incompetent legislators that now enjoy the lowest approval rating in Congressional recordkeeping history.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 01:21 PM
    If you want to know how efficient Government is, just look at OTB (Off Track Betting) in New York. It's the only time in recorded history that bookmakers actually LOSE money!!!!!!!!!!
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 01:32 PM
    It is difficult to manipulate the energy market when there is a large surplus of energy. The government has to do what the energy companies won't - create new energy sources.

    The government possibly needs to build solar and wind farms, and hydrogen producing plants, then auction them off to the energy companies.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 01:45 PM
    Zena, kind of like eBay, huh? Bidding for 6000 wind turbines in West Texas...2d 4hrs remaining...last bid $4,097,567,342.95...yo... are currently losing...bid again?...you must bid at least $4,097,567,343.95...

    I love it!

    Seriously, I'm not sure that's what I want government doing. Putting up the capital to build alternative energy? Why not let the market do that? What you are still talking about is subsidizing alt energy, either through extending capital or selling at a loss.

    Heck, we've got a group of private investors and private landowners trying to build a wind farm in South Texas WITHOUT any gov't subsidies. Guess what? The Greenie Weenies are fighting them!!

    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 01:46 PM
    People are blaming Big Oil for not building refineries and investing. Well look at the news today. The EPA just denied permits to expand a refinery in Illinois. Do a search on COP and Wood River. Amazing. Is $4/gallon not high enough to let the oil industry start building more refining capacity??????

    Yeah, I guess we should villianize Big Oil...after all they are the ONLY GROUP in this discussion actually putting gasoline in your tank and doing something about the problem!!
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 01:54 PM
    Just another reason NOT to vote Democratic! Total nut cakes!
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 02:13 PM
    Waters is a communist.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 02:19 PM
    I don't consider the article a good refutation of Walter's position... it's too heavy on abject slams and not even close to objective.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 02:37 PM
    The group who makes the most money off of each gallon of gas is the US Government (15%) whereas the oil companies make an average of 4%. At $4.15/gallon thats .62 cents of "profit" per gallon. Tax free of course ;-). Seems like we've already done it. Then again, considering our "nationalized&quo... success stories like education, if we do go farther with this concept (she is a complete idiot) 15% "profit" will become 6% and the quality and availability will plummet.

    Can't wait to see that Chinese oil rig being built off the Florida coast (first of six I am told), flying the Chinese flag half way into our "protected zone".

    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 03:16 PM
    Republicans: Let the free market defeat the price-fixing, manipulation, and monopolies that inevitably form in the market. The economy may become very unstable in the mean time, but feast or famine bubbles are good for profits.

    Democrats: The poor people suffer the most when the monopolies price-fix and manipulate prices. To keep the poor from starving, crime rates from soaring, and widespread suffering - monopolies must be heavily regulated by the government, even if it's bad for corporate profits.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 03:19 PM
    It is hard for me to accept that a US congress person would advocate nationalizing a successful American corporation. I thought tens of thousands of our men and women died during the 20th century to protect our free enterprise system and our freedom to pursue our dreams for a better life. I do not believe they died for the idea of being controlled by a powerful central government. I lived under communist rule in central Europe for too many years; the only advice I would have is don’t wish for it (it takes about 10-20 years to run out of the wealth the government confiscate from the successful, then you will have total despair ). Many of the younger generation never had it tough and if we stay on this socialist road we will find out what tough is. Perhaps studying history would be in order. Once you destroy a successful system it is very hard to reverse course. 52 years ago I could not have imagined that I will hear the word “nationalize” uttered in the US congress. God save us. I hope better minds will prevail. Can anyone tell me what happened to our schools and universities advocating this old and failed system? Do we want to punish success and reward failure?
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 03:57 PM
    It would be nice if the stock market and our income followed along with gas prices,
    But the stock market is down and not to many companys are in a position to hand out rasises and gas prices keep going up.

    And who,s getting this money. The oil companys say the saudi,s are getting it and the saudi,s are saying the oil companys are getting it. I understand there are production costs and the deeper you drill the more expesive it is, but how does anyone justify a barrel for $200. I worked on a oil rig and we would drill a extra 1000 ft but that would not make it twice as expensive. Someting is wrong here..
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 03:58 PM
    We need to drill more oil here in the united states !!!!!!!
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 04:37 PM
    "Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
    "Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
    ...Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged)
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 10 06:59 PM
    Stop calling Maxine names. She's the lowest common denominator and is not responsible for what she thinks of as her "ideas."
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 11 12:09 AM
    chubbster, you are right. the left continues to elect touchy feely liberals who feel our pain and want to put us out of our misery. frankly, i can't say i blame them. republicans had the greatest opportunity to fix our economy, to balance our books and postpone the left's lunacy for fifty years. instead, they took us to war.

    that wouldn't have been so bad either, but they screwed that war up. we have air superiority and dominion over the skys everywhere. why do we put our soldiers at risk? why do we get involved in ground wars? it is financially impossible to project power across the globe. vietnam taught us that.

    simply bomb hussein and drop leaflets that the bombs will stop for 24 hours until we hear that hussein is gone or opened his country to nuclear inspection or whatever you want. once you have convinced one country that you mean business, you will have no trouble from iran or north korea.

    or, republicans could have gotten together with china and russia, which both finally headed into capitalism and agreed on a policy that would support all three, instead of allowing our country to be out capitalized by them. china and russia were broke and backward. thanks to our tax dollars being misspent and our energy dollars given to them, they are now able to buy us.

    much as you hate the democrats, at least they would waste our money on us. ok, not the working part of us, but at least the poor part of us. then those people could continue to go to the 99 cent store or walmart and i could buy stock and be rich, but noooooo....
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 11 08:33 AM
    the large oil companies in aggregate own like 3-6% of the total oil reserves in the world....they are nothing but small players in a very large market.


    They collectively produce around what...10 million barrels or so, which is 11.7%.......they are damn efficient...and they have to work with some pretty nasty countries in some nasty environments. They deserve the money.

    Why is everyone trying to take something that isn't theirs? and why is it now a problem?

    The market wants to use more oil than is supplied....this is physical and geological limits that we could possibly be running into.....and at some point we will hit these limits...regardless of how efficient or advanced we are at pulling the oil out of the ground.

    We need other forms of energy at some point.....and I cannot say where this energy should come from...or who provides the capital.....but the government is probably the least efficient at doing whatever.

    The government only has what it takes from others.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 11 11:25 AM
    Scott M for President!

    On the thoroughly ridonkulous notion of "One man's "spending" is another man's "investment"... You socialists (and that's simply a factual observation, not a personal attack) out there are missing one very big point: In a purely capitalist society (not to be confused with what we have in the US), buyers and sellers interact with FREEDOM, and they each decide to trade with each other only when each makes the other better off. In that way, the collective benefit steadily rises, and capital moves FREELY to those purposes where it achieves the most good.

    Under socialism, buyers and sellers are FORCED to transact with each other under terms that are dictated by POLITICS. So unlike free-market capitalism, socialism is a system that REQUIRES people to squabble with each other to determine how to split up whatever loot they can steal from others. The whole issue of who-decides-what is completely political, invites corruption, breeds mistrust and is ultimately entirely immoral, in that 51% of the population can vote to completely stomp on the other 49%.

    Will some socialist please answer this question? Why is it that if I break into your house and steal your stuff, only because I want to give it all away, I will be thrown into JAIL, but if I convince my government to effectively do the same thing, via taxes, regulations and the like, I'm a compassionate "progressive"... and am now suitable for ANOINTMENT by the media?

    PLEASE answer that question.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 11 11:44 AM
    Microsoft makes obscene profits from selling Windows to the entire corporate world and government. We should socialize it. Why put so much power in the hands of one company?
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 11 11:50 AM
    Saudi Aramco is 10 times bigger than Exxon-Mobil. The US oil companies are like shrimp in an ocean. They control nothing. If we socialize our oil companies, that means no more tax revenues. That means we lose all of the contracts we signed in Central Asia, South America and Africa. PeMex is the national oil company for Mexico. They are losing money despite record high oil and gas prices. That tells you how well government bureaucrats can run oil companies.
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 11 12:10 PM
    I beleive it is the right thing to call Oil a Utility. It should be nationalized and or the price should be regulated, just like Electricity and Natural Gas... Oh by the way.... the author of this article... forgot to mention one thing. Venezuela now has the LOWEST GAS PRICES in the WORLD.. Currently 19 cents a gallon. What is Wrong with that?
    Reply
  •  
    Jun 11 12:17 PM
    Here is a gread article titled "Make oil a public utility" written by a Judge out of New York - Ed Ludwig

    timesunion.com/AspStor...
    Reply
  •