Democrats move to nationalize oil refineries

[benny215]

http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18

"We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

-- Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)

you have got to be kidding me, this will solve absolutely nothing and only make it worse

[asgardshill]

I don't see what you're getting so upset about. Nationalizing stuff you want for yourself is what every other socialist banana republic government does.

[pcosmar]

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.
A truly scary thought there. But not unexpected, there have been some efforts to move us in that direction.

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah, it's ALWAYS worked out so well EVERYWHERE that it's been tried! :p :rolleyes:

[danberkeley]

Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.

Get ready for shortages! Btw, Hitler also "socialized" refineries. Oh! But dont compare Dems to Hitler!

[Truth Warrior]

Get ready for shortages! Btw, Hitler also "socialized" refineries. Oh! But dont compare Dems to Hitler!
Why not they're both socialists. :p

[electronicmaji]

Well there are arguements for this. The Goverment should ensure the flow of neccesity items like food, oil, water, safety, etc. And their are counterarguements. I really don't know what they should do exactly.

[brandon]

Well there are arguements for this. The Goverment should ensure the flow of neccesity items like food, oil, water, safety, etc. And their are counterarguements. I really don't know what they should do exactly.

Have you not learned a damn thing in the 6 months you spent at this forum? :eek:

[OptionsTrader]

Have you not learned a damn thing in the 6 months you spent at this forum? :eek:

No he is an Obama shill.

[brandon]

The Goverment should ensure the flow of neccesity items like food, oil, water, safety, etc.



Well I guess as long as the government ensures items like safety keep flowing we should all be grateful.

[werdd]

Yeah the goverment will save oil just like social security, the falling dollar, and entitlement programs.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Get ready for shortages! Btw, Hitler also "socialized" refineries. Oh! But dont compare Dems to Hitler!

Yeah, compare the Democrats to Lenin!

Wasn't he the one who coined the phrase: Fascism is Capitalism in decline?
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/4705/chicken140906700x467oj7.jpg

[asgardshill]

Cue Ben Franklin quote and boiled frog analogy in 5, 4, 3, 2 ...

[werdd]

Yeah, compare the Democrats to Lenin!

Wasn't he the one who coined the phrase: Fascism is Capitalism in decline?
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/4705/chicken140906700x467oj7.jpg

The democrats are directly(and decievingly) modeling their selves directly after communist russia.

that is atleast the product they are selling.

The funny thing is, some idiots want it so bad that they are willing to believe these lying bastards. It's astonishing how we worked so long to defeat communism, and now there are some who think its a good idea to move in that direction.

One thing is for sure, whichever way the election goes, if their name has a D or an R next to it we are in for 4 more years of Iraq.

[silverlegacy]

One argument in favor of nationalizing the oil and natural gas industry is Norway. They have very successfully nationalized theirs. It pays into a fund, The Government Pension Fund of Norway, and that pays for and ensures long term (***in theory***) stability for their programs. Their fund is growing by leaps and bounds with high oil prices and is invested in stock markets, commodities and other investments, so, in theory, it should continue to grow. In fact, if the fund gets large enough it could be totally self-sustaining for lots of their social programs.

Think of it as the ultimate mutual fund.

BTW I don't agree that we should nationalize anything and the markets would work much, much more efficiently if they were free. But I can recognize that some socialist aspects can work as intended if the are implemented properly with a sound gov't.

[OptionsTrader]

But I can recognize that some socialist aspects can work as intended if the are implemented properly with a sound gov't.

"A sound government." What in the hell is that?

[silverlegacy]

One that isn't totally corrupt, which is nearly impossible.

[electronicmaji]

The democrats are directly(and decievingly) modeling their selves directly after communist russia.

that is atleast the product they are selling.

The funny thing is, some idiots want it so bad that they are willing to believe these lying bastards. It's astonishing how we worked so long to defeat communism, and now there are some who think its a good idea to move in that direction.

One thing is for sure, whichever way the election goes, if their name has a D or an R next to it we are in for 4 more years of Iraq.

HARDLY. They are modeling themselves after Moderate developed countries. Their not even liberal socialists. There conservative or very moderate ones. Their ideas are considered moderate and common sense in every developed country in the world.

[pcosmar]

As I remember, we overthrew the elected government of Iran because the nationalized their oil production.
We have also sent terrorists into South America for the same reasons.
That is the reason Chavez is so hated.

Now they want to do it to us.

Hypocrisy.

[AutoDas]

One argument in favor of nationalizing the oil and natural gas industry is Norway. They have very successfully nationalized theirs. It pays into a fund, The Government Pension Fund of Norway, and that pays for and ensures long term (***in theory***) stability for their programs. Their fund is growing by leaps and bounds with high oil prices and is invested in stock markets, commodities and other investments, so, in theory, it should continue to grow. In fact, if the fund gets large enough it could be totally self-sustaining for lots of their social programs.

Think of it as the ultimate mutual fund.

BTW I don't agree that we should nationalize anything and the markets would work much, much more efficiently if they were free. But I can recognize that some socialist aspects can work as intended if the are implemented properly with a sound gov't.

This is one of the reasons why I hate when the Europeans want to cap and trade. They are exporting all of their oil, they are the cause of it. If they want to help then they should stop drilling for oil but they won't do that because they rely on the industries in more capitalistic countries. Socialists have a myopic social plan, what happens when the oil runs dry?

[Conza88]

No he is an Obama shill.

QFT. Electronicmaji needs to watch: THIS. (http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiurw9T5p_s)

[James Madison]

Yeah, it's ALWAYS worked out so well EVERYWHERE that it's been tried! :p :rolleyes:

Maybe the CIA will overthrow the US now...;)

[Southron]

Kinda makes me feel like I'm living in the book Atlas Shrugged. Even I didn't think we would go downhill this fast.



HARDLY. They are modeling themselves after Moderate developed countries. Their not even liberal socialists. There conservative or very moderate ones. Their ideas are considered moderate and common sense in every developed country in the world.

Speaking of Ayn Rand, does this guy/gal remind anyone else of Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead? :D

Anyway, let's not give up this country without a fight.

http://www.appleseedinfo.org/

[Black Dude]

Won't privatizing the refineries just give the monopoly to the very few oil companies that own them? Nationalizing will be a monopoly too, but will it be any worse than a private monopoly?

[SeanEdwards]

What's bothering me is the lack of prostitute availability in the town where I live. I wonder if I can convince the government to nationalize the sex industry so they can make sure that quality ass is available at a reasonable price.

[electronicmaji]

What's bothering me is the lack of prostitute availability in the town where I live. I wonder if I can convince the government to nationalize the sex industry so they can make sure that quality ass is available at a reasonable price.

Germany does it. It works very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascha_%28brothel%29

[RSLudlum]

What's bothering me is the lack of prostitute availability in the town where I live. I wonder if I can convince the government to nationalize the sex industry so they can make sure that quality ass is available at a reasonable price.


LOL....Do you really want the gov't defining what "quality ass" is?? :D

[Black Dude]

I suppose that if regulations on the building of refineries were relaxed, we would have a whole lot more of them, and there would be a certain level of competition.
But since the supply/demand curve for oil is inelastic, the supply could be kept low by the refinery owners to maximize profits if there wasn't enough competition, and prices would stay high. That would be my argument in favor of nationalizing the oil refineries.
My argument against nationalizing the oil would be that our country would end up being even more reliant on oil than we are now. The federal gov would use the revenues to further expand scope of the state. A more appropriate use would be to divvy out the revenues to the individual States so they could use it as they wish (kinda like the Biden/Brownback idea for Iraq). Eventually though, the oil will run out. Then all of this government revenue that society will be accustomed to won't exist. Then they will probably look to other sources of nationalization to make up for it (eek!).

Either way, looking at the long term, is it a good idea to use up the world's oil over the next century? The biggest incentive for alternative/renewable energy is higher oil prices right? Do we really want low low oil prices when it ends up keeping renewable energy sources from emerging/innovating as fast?

[SeanEdwards]

Germany does it. It works very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascha_%28brothel%29

OMG! :eek:

A bizarre story was reported in August 2005: two women, 19 and 29 years old, had rented two rooms in the Pascha and announced over the internet that they would pay any man 50 Euros for sex; the goal was to find out who could have more partners in one day. In the end they had sex for 11 hours with a total of 115 men, and about 1,700 others had to be turned away. The German tabloid Bild turned the story into a headline the next day. The women insisted that they had paid the men from their own vacation money and had not received any compensation from Bild or Pascha.[10] The 19 year old woman later worked in the club brothel of Pascha.

[AutoDas]

Germany does it. It works very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascha_%28brothel%29

Brothels are legal in some counties of Nevada. I don't see anywhere in that article where it says the government pays for these prostitutes. I wouldn't want them too either. You can't discriminate against fat, ugly whores.

[SeanEdwards]

Brothels are legal in some counties of Nevada. I don't see anywhere in that article where it says the government pays for these prostitutes. I wouldn't want them too either. You can't discriminate against fat, ugly whores.

They have discounts for seniors. LOL

[asgardshill]

A bizarre story was reported in August 2005: two women, 19 and 29 years old, had rented two rooms in the Pascha and announced over the internet that they would pay any man 50 Euros for sex; the goal was to find out who could have more partners in one day. In the end they had sex for 11 hours with a total of 115 men, and about 1,700 others had to be turned away.

So much for the afterglow thing :rolleyes:

Ummkay, lessee ... assuming they serviced roughly the same number of men, that's an average of 57, er, "events" for each girl over the 11 hours. That comes out to 5.18 events per hour per girl, which breaks out to 12 minutes per event. They surely had to take bathroom breaks and/or eat at some time during the 11 hours - did they wear a Camelbak or something so they could keep hydrated while "in the saddle"? Or did they both take meal/hygiene breaks and just make up the time on volume?

Just damn. This is why you should pay attention in math class.

[Danke]

So much for the afterglow thing :rolleyes:

Ummkay, lessee ... assuming they serviced roughly the same number of men, that's an average of 57, er, "events" for each girl over the 11 hours. That comes out to 5.18 events per hour per girl, which breaks out to 12 minutes per event. They surely had to take bathroom breaks and/or eat at some time during the 11 hours - did they wear a Camelbak or something so they could keep hydrated while "in the saddle"? Or did they both take meal/hygiene breaks and just make up the time on volume?

Just damn. This is why you should pay attention in math class.

Thanks for breaking it down for us. I enjoyed this as much as hearing electronicmaji saying gay sex is not icky.

[danberkeley]

Won't privatizing the refineries just give the monopoly to the very few oil companies that own them? Nationalizing will be a monopoly too, but will it be any worse than a private monopoly?

How would privatizing refineries give monopoly to any one? There hundreds of refineries in this country.Yes. Nationalizing would be worse.

[danberkeley]

I suppose that if regulations on the building of refineries were relaxed, we would have a whole lot more of them, and there would be a certain level of competition.
Of course.


But since the supply/demand curve for oil is inelastic, the supply could be kept low by the refinery owners to maximize profits if there wasn't enough competition, and prices would stay high. That would be my argument in favor of nationalizing the oil refineries.

The supply of oil is not inelastic. Stats already show that deman is lessening



My argument against nationalizing the oil would be that our country would end up being even more reliant on oil than we are now. The federal gov would use the revenues to further expand scope of the state. A more appropriate use would be to divvy out the revenues to the individual States so they could use it as they wish (kinda like the Biden/Brownback idea for Iraq). Eventually though, the oil will run out. Then all of this government revenue that society will be accustomed to won't exist. Then they will probably look to other sources of nationalization to make up for it (eek!).

Thats because it would create a bubble.


Either way, looking at the long term, is it a good idea to use up the world's oil over the next century? The biggest incentive for alternative/renewable energy is higher oil prices right? Do we really want low low oil prices when it ends up keeping renewable energy sources from emerging/innovating as fast?
Let the market decide.

[asgardshill]

Thanks for breaking it down for us. I enjoyed this as much as hearing electronicmaji saying gay sex is not icky.

lawl

[electronicmaji]

Brothels are legal in some counties of Nevada. I don't see anywhere in that article where it says the government pays for these prostitutes. I wouldn't want them too either. You can't discriminate against fat, ugly whores.

They don't pay for them, but they make sure they are healthy and they can't work if they aren't inspected by the goverment. They also pay a tax for working in that business.

[Theocrat]

Well there are arguements for this. The Goverment should ensure the flow of neccesity items like food, oil, water, safety, etc. And their are counterarguements. I really don't know what they should do exactly.

What Constitutional justification does our federal government have to be involved in owning any oil refinery? To even imply that they have the power to do such a thing is to take another morbid step down the path which leads to Communism. I think this suggested action to take over the oil refineries by Congress is just another evidence of the federal government's failure in trying to control the means of production in our economy, and how their irrational solutions to fix economic problems undermines the very thing which they seek to save, namely, our free market.

Lord, please cast out the demon(crat)s from the presence of Your people...

[LibertyOfOne]

HARDLY. They are modeling themselves after Moderate developed countries. Their not even liberal socialists. There conservative or very moderate ones. Their ideas are considered moderate and common sense in every developed country in the world.

Nationalizing a resource is strictly a communist idea. How do you think they will get a hold of the companies anyways? What just steal it from them or buy them out? I seriously doubt the latter because the government can't afford it. No, what will happen is people will lose out on their retirement funds because some idiots thought it would be a good idea to steal from Americans. Because it's the American shareholders who own these companies. Something like 41% percent of all the oil companies assets are owned by people through their retirement funds. Not only that, but when it comes to running shit the government sucks. The government is not checked by market incentives and forces. The whole thing will be governed by politics, which is the worst thing possible. Why else would the closet communists want to nationalize the energy supply? Well once you own a monopoly on the energy supply that then gives the government more power to exert control over your life. Now they can set how much your money is worth, next they will have the ability to set how much energy you can consume. The former the government is currently incompetent at (federal reserve). I think anyone with any care would not stand up for out right theft from people who simply want to tuck money away for their future retirement, college tuition for their children, or future entrepreneurial plans.

Video of some idiot calling for nationalization.

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/9E3kdWR-Cavuto-nat (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/18/good-news-another-democrat-calls-for-nationalizing-the-oil-industry/)

Get this she also wants a state ran media!! Hello Soviet Union here we come.

If you think the media is bad as is wait until it's government ran and the only choices in media consumption are government approved ones.

[LibertyOfOne]

That has to be the first time I have ever agreed with Theocrat.

[DriftWood]

One argument in favor of nationalizing the oil and natural gas industry is Norway. They have very successfully nationalized theirs. It pays into a fund, The Government Pension Fund of Norway, and that pays for and ensures long term (***in theory***) stability for their programs. Their fund is growing by leaps and bounds with high oil prices and is invested in stock markets, commodities and other investments, so, in theory, it should continue to grow. In fact, if the fund gets large enough it could be totally self-sustaining for lots of their social programs.

Think of it as the ultimate mutual fund.

BTW I don't agree that we should nationalize anything and the markets would work much, much more efficiently if they were free. But I can recognize that some socialist aspects can work as intended if the are implemented properly with a sound gov't.

Yeah, but like all oil rich countries.. the economy (public and private) in Norway is very innefficient. They can afford all this wasting.. as long as money keeps growing out of the ground. However once it stops.. their ineffcient economy will not be ale to pay for all that wasteful spending. In a way being rich in oil is a curse. It kills the competition in the economy. It kills the grassroots and diversity of the economy. No business can compete with the profits from oil. And eventually that will bite em where it hurts.

Anyways.. if you are for having oil money going into a public fund.. well there are better ways to do that without nationalizing a company. You can just tax the company allot, and direct the tax money into the public fund. Atleast this way you get the private arket to work for you, instead of killing it and being left with a bleeding mess.

Ofcourse if you tax the company, the cost will just be passed on to the consumer.

The same thing will happen (only worse) if you make the company nationalized. It will get so badly run and inefficient in its production that the consumer ends up paying a big price for even the simplest of product. And if the govt is giving away the product below the market price then..

Just look at what happened in venezuela.. they officially have lots of cheap oil. But people cant actually buy any because of shortages. You really cant sell something below market price without causing shortages. Its that simple. And the best way to ensure that something is being sold at market prices, is to let the private sector sell the stuff. Doing anything else is just asking for trouble.

You should read Ron Pauls favorite book. "Economics in one lesson". Its a short one, but a good one. Its probably the best book i ever read.

Cheers

[werdd]

HARDLY. They are modeling themselves after Moderate developed countries. Their not even liberal socialists. There conservative or very moderate ones. Their ideas are considered moderate and common sense in every developed country in the world.

Universal healthcare is a major step toward communism, the closer they bring your income from 40% to the goverment to 100% to the goverment the better in their minds.

One thing is for sure, if you are dying, i sure as hell dont want to pay for your waste of space.

[werdd]

And how in the hell are we talking about nationalizing oil refineries when we havent built one in 30 years. And the reason being, liberal's and neo-cons alike have prevented us from building any, the goverment stands directly in the way of the free market.

If anything, the goverment and the enviromentalist clowns would just shut down more of the ones we have.

[IRO-bot]

Teabag, since you call yourself a "Social Libertarian", please explain, through the philosophy of libertarianism your support of social programs such as universal healthcare and nationalized oil refineries.

If you cannot. I would like you to stop dragging the name Libertarian though the mud and just call yourself a Socialist. Thank you.

[Ozwest]

Hate to state the obvious.

But did you ever think...

The American war machine is nationalizing the middle east.

Wonder what the oil prices would be without "Iraq attack," and continuous threats against Iran, Wall street speculation?

Time for some self-introspection cheeseburger eaters.

[Ozwest]

Seems to me like someone owns the Casino.

[pcosmar]

This country has been "on the road" to socialism since the early 1900s. Is has been getting worse and the attempt to disguise it is being dropped.
The whole purpose of this "movement" is to oppose and reverse it.

Not surprising that the enemies of liberty oppose us.

[Ozwest]

pcosmar,

Until people start hurting "big time," things will remain the same.

Something tells me, that economic pain is around the corner.

That is the moment that patriots are needed.

"liberty is telling people what they do not want to hear."

George Orwell -

[acptulsa]

Get this she also wants a state ran media!! Hello Soviet Union here we come.

If you think the media is bad as is wait until it's government ran and the only choices in media consumption are government approved ones.

Someone should educate her on TASS and Pravda. I guess she's tired of thinking and wants the simple life. What's simpler than being a slave?

Back in 1936 Gov. William "Alfalfa Bill" Murray tried to shut down oil production in Oklahoma. As Will Rogers said, America was "the first nation in history to go to the poorhouse in an automobile" as, amazingly, auto registrations increased during the Great Depression. A large part of the reason why is to be found in Oklahoma where the great, historic Glen Pool and Drumwright Pool were only about half emptied.

Now, our system of property rights and mineral rights was in no way designed for oil. The mineral rights system was designed around tunnel mining for coal and other ore. That's why someone else can own the minerals under your land. Oil, of course, is a liquid. So, mineral rights is just another term for a place to stick your straw (so to speak) into a pool that extends for miles and miles. Once you stick your "straw" in and start pumping, you then look at your neighbor and realize that if you pump faster, you'll get more of what's down there.

The phrase they used at the time was "too many straws in the same glass", alluding to kids at the drug store sharing a soda. The net effect was that the wildcatters would keep pumping whether the price of oil was too low for them to make a profit or not, because if they didn't their neighbor would get all the oil. That's where Gov. Murray comes in.

"Alfalfa Bill" was a character, and that's being kind. He saw the state starving, enveloped in dust, and losing farmers wholesale while the rest of the nation was moving up to automobile ownership on our backs. So, in order to get the price of gas up Murray ordered oil production stopped statewide and sent the state militia to enforce that ban. In short, Oklahoma was such a rich resource that he believed we could do the OPEC thing all by ourselves.

FDR didn't like it. He ordered the oil pumping resumed and sent national troops to enforce his decision. Gov. Murray had to blink, and we continued to get oil at less than the cost to pump it until the economy improved. Before those famous pools ran nearly dry (there are Creek families who own land and property rights over little isolated pockets of the Glen Pool and are still pumping today) the U.S. had the biggest cars in the world and those cars were powered by the biggest, most inefficient engines.

And I don't really know what it means. But it is an interesting chapter, and I thought I'd throw it out there.

[Anti Federalist]

As I remember, we overthrew the elected government of Iran because the nationalized their oil production.
We have also sent terrorists into South America for the same reasons.
That is the reason Chavez is so hated.

Now they want to do it to us.

Hypocrisy.
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w262/gator_momma/Applause.gif

[weslinder]

I worked for a refinery in Louisiana that was built by the Federal government in the 40s to supply enough aviation fuel for the war. The Fed ran it as a money loser, pumping tax dollars into it for 2 years, before selling it to a private company. The private company turned a profit almost immediately, and soon was able to lower the prices on the fuel.

[Ozwest]

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w262/gator_momma/Applause.gif


Pcsomar, is...

Correct.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

solution to oil: deregulate everything and just leave it alone

if the people don't produce enough oil...oh well, that just means it will cost more, because there will be less of it. what I think wouldhappen with free market energy is a mixture of...oil, coal, ethanol, hemp, corn oil, steam, solar, wind. each energy source would "own" a piece of the economic pie, the most efficient will be the most profitable...while the least and most expensive will naturally not be as favored by the people

energy is just not a government issue. I don't care if we run out of oil tomorrow, the government has no place in energy

[silverlegacy]

Yeah, but like all oil rich countries.. the economy (public and private) in Norway is very innefficient. They can afford all this wasting.. as long as money keeps growing out of the ground. However once it stops.. their ineffcient economy will not be ale to pay for all that wasteful spending. In a way being rich in oil is a curse. It kills the competition in the economy. It kills the grassroots and diversity of the economy. No business can compete with the profits from oil. And eventually that will bite em where it hurts.

Anyways.. if you are for having oil money going into a public fund.. well there are better ways to do that without nationalizing a company. You can just tax the company allot, and direct the tax money into the public fund. Atleast this way you get the private arket to work for you, instead of killing it and being left with a bleeding mess.

Ofcourse if you tax the company, the cost will just be passed on to the consumer.

The same thing will happen (only worse) if you make the company nationalized. It will get so badly run and inefficient in its production that the consumer ends up paying a big price for even the simplest of product. And if the govt is giving away the product below the market price then..

Just look at what happened in venezuela.. they officially have lots of cheap oil. But people cant actually buy any because of shortages. You really cant sell something below market price without causing shortages. Its that simple. And the best way to ensure that something is being sold at market prices, is to let the private sector sell the stuff. Doing anything else is just asking for trouble.

You should read Ron Pauls favorite book. "Economics in one lesson". Its a short one, but a good one. Its probably the best book i ever read.

Cheers


I'm an economics grad (finally!), moving on to a very highly respected PHd program this fall. I have read Economics in One Lesson and I agree it is very enlightening, but it does have some flaws as it doesn't go into detail about lots of issues that are very important to a society.

I don't disagree that Norway has a lot of other faults, but I would argue that overall they are the richest country in the world. Granted they aren't the highest GDP per captia or a few other measures, but they have tremendous natural resources, no reliance on foreign energy (most of the country is hydro or geothermal), have a soild education system and have a very highly educated public.

With high energy prices, Norway is might be the country best situated for extreme economic growth. As long as Norway keeps a close budget on their fund (which they don't allow more to be taken out than the normal growth, usually 4% a year is allowed to be spent) they will be able to continue their social programs for years to come. I applaud what they have done, but I don't want to model an economy after it/ Though I do believe that out of all countries in this world, Norway has by far the strongest economy. It may not have the most growth or efficiency, but it works.

BTW This is the only "socialist" system that I think would work for an extended period of time. Is it the most efficient or best, I don't believe that in the least. Does it work and work very well? Yes.

[Brian4Liberty]

"We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."

-- Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)

you have got to be kidding me, this will solve absolutely nothing and only make it worse

Lol! Yes, of course.

The solution to the problem of limited refining capacity (due to the collusion of big Oil) is to replace an Oligopoly with a government Monopoly. Brilliant! :rolleyes:

How about building more independent refineries instead? :eek:

[silverlegacy]

Lol! Yes, of course.

The solution to the problem of limited refining capacity (due to the collusion of big Oil) is to replace an Oligopoly with a government Monopoly. Brilliant! :rolleyes:

How about building more independent refineries instead? :eek:


If rate of return regulation were used, it would increase supply and lower price. This is how our power companies work. A government regulated monopoly, and without it there would be much higher prices.

[AutoDas]

You want to remain dependent on oil?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If rate of return regulation were used, it would increase supply and lower price. This is how our power companies work. A government regulated monopoly, and without it there would be much higher prices.

seems like the more regulation we have the more things get worse. where's your evidence? you have nothing to back yourself up. Competition brings prices down in other industries just fine, why is oil different? If prices go too high for something in a free market it just means that less people will buy it and that would mean the people would naturally begin usin alternative energies. the private sector will see a shift in demand then they will start new businesses in alternative energy industry to capitalize on it. the competition in the brand new industries would lead to lower prices and increased quality of the product. shit businesses go under while the best stay and supply a demand. people vote with their dollars, you know.

[danberkeley]

most of the pro-gov examples of how energy is best run by the Gov are relying on the Gov's own statistic. unfortunately, those statistics are easily manipulated.

[pdavis]

One argument in favor of nationalizing the oil and natural gas industry is Norway. They have very successfully nationalized theirs. It pays into a fund, The Government Pension Fund of Norway, and that pays for and ensures long term (***in theory***) stability for their programs. Their fund is growing by leaps and bounds with high oil prices and is invested in stock markets, commodities and other investments, so, in theory, it should continue to grow. In fact, if the fund gets large enough it could be totally self-sustaining for lots of their social programs.

Think of it as the ultimate mutual fund.

BTW I don't agree that we should nationalize anything and the markets would work much, much more efficiently if they were free. But I can recognize that some socialist aspects can work as intended if the are implemented properly with a sound gov't.


One that isn't totally corrupt, which is nearly impossible.

Read about Mises' and Hayek's economic calculation problem.


Won't privatizing the refineries just give the monopoly to the very few oil companies that own them? Nationalizing will be a monopoly too, but will it be any worse than a private monopoly?

Yes, I think it would be just as bad.


How would privatizing refineries give monopoly to any one? There hundreds of refineries in this country.Yes. Nationalizing would be worse.

It is because the State is granting special privileges and leasing or handing over it's so called "property" to very few usually the elitists. Since the States "property" is unowned and unused, the State is not the legitimate owner since it has not homesteaded such land and even if it did it still would not be the legitimate owner since it uses stolen funds in order to operate. In our current state (an unfree market) nationalizing would be just as bad as privatizing.

[danberkeley]

It is because the State is granting special privileges and leasing or handing over it's so called "property" to very few usually the elitists. Since the States "property" is unowned and unused, the State is not the legitimate owner since it has not homesteaded such land and even if it did it still would not be the legitimate owner since it uses stolen funds in order to operate. In our current state (an unfree market) nationalizing would be just as bad as privatizing.

???? Oh, ok. I see what you're saying. But "privatizing" oil refineries would have to be complimented will privatizing of the oil fields, etc.

[silverlegacy]

seems like the more regulation we have the more things get worse. where's your evidence? you have nothing to back yourself up. Competition brings prices down in other industries just fine, why is oil different? If prices go too high for something in a free market it just means that less people will buy it and that would mean the people would naturally begin usin alternative energies. the private sector will see a shift in demand then they will start new businesses in alternative energy industry to capitalize on it. the competition in the brand new industries would lead to lower prices and increased quality of the product. shit businesses go under while the best stay and supply a demand. people vote with their dollars, you know.


Think how your power company works. It is a monopoly for one company to supply the whole area with power. The #1 reason for having only one company is the fact that it is way cheaper to have 1 line. Imagine if there were 5 power companies that you could choose from. You would have 5 different power lines running into your house. 5 different lines to maintain. 5 different power plants etc... On top of that you would likely have 1/5 the customers to pay for it. The infrastructure costs are most of your energy bill.

With a competitive system (which we had at one point), a natural monopoly forms. When they formed in the 20's to 40's they started acting like monopolies (being a monopoly is not illegal, it is how a monopoly acts that determines that). Once that happens the market has essentially failed to deliver the equilibrium price for the market. So, regulation enters. Rate of return, profit, revenue etc are all different ways to regulate. Well, if you look at a monopoly's graphs you will see that there is a huge deadweight loss where there is less supplied at a higher price. So the price is tied to the average total cost, which lowers the price for consumers and raises the supply. Now the company is no longer making an economic profit, but by tying the price to the ATC they still are allowed to make a normal profit. Is it fair to the business, not at all, but without it there would be skyrocketing prices.

This was a VERY basic overview of why this regulation is needed, but if you want to continue this conversation PM me because this is off topic.

BTW I have read Socialism by Mises and he is right, but the forms of Socialism he was talking about are way different than those being applied through the world. Not that it changes his conclusions (it doesn't), but his work can't be directly applied to newer forms of socialism.

[Anti Federalist]

Many here are too young to recall this, but this idea was already tried in 1970s.

Price "caps" were put on oil as part of the WIN (whip inflation now) campaign, an ill advised socialist scheme brought forth by, no kidding, republicans, specifically Nixon and Ford.

The result by the late 70s: no gas at ANY price, rationing and economic collapse, all while oil tankers sat anchored just offshore, refusing to offload their cargoes at a loss.

[danberkeley]

Think how your power company works. It is a monopoly for one company to supply the whole area with power. The #1 reason for having only one company is the fact that it is way cheaper to have 1 line. Imagine if there were 5 power companies that you could choose from. You would have 5 different power lines running into your house. 5 different lines to maintain. 5 different power plants etc... On top of that you would likely have 1/5 the customers to pay for it. The infrastructure costs are most of your energy bill.


what's wrong with having 5 different power lines? anyway, if power via power cable from a local power is too expensive, then the customer could choose to buy a solar panel system. technology is absoluting the idea that utilities are natural monopolies per se.


With a competitive system (which we had at one point), a natural monopoly forms. When they formed in the 20's to 40's they started acting like monopolies (being a monopoly is not illegal, it is how a monopoly acts that determines that). Once that happens the market has essentially failed to deliver the equilibrium price for the market. So, regulation enters. Rate of return, profit, revenue etc are all different ways to regulate. Well, if you look at a monopoly's graphs you will see that there is a huge deadweight loss where there is less supplied at a higher price. So the price is tied to the average total cost, which lowers the price for consumers and raises the supply. Now the company is no longer making an economic profit, but by tying the price to the ATC they still are allowed to make a normal profit. Is it fair to the business, not at all, but without it there would be skyrocketing prices.

It sounds like you're paraphrasing my school's economics textbook. I suggest Dr Dominick T. Armentano's Antitrust: The Case for Repeal.
This was a VERY basic overview of why this regulation is needed, but if you want to continue this conversation PM me because this is off topic.

[LibertyOfOne]

You can have more than one power company on the same line to the house. This is no longer the early 1900's. There are places in the U.S where more than one power company is an option. Also in Europe you also have a choice. The new digital gird provides the solution to more than one power company off the same line.

[damania]

NATIONALIZATION of oil is a scheme by the Elites to control Oil which would put them in the position to control everything. Oil is in every aspect of your life. It's in everything! Oil is used to grow food, take you places, etc.

PLEASE read this book! Lindsey William's The Non-Energy Crises. Please scroll down and read all the chapters! http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

Lindsey also has a lot of videos on video.google.com and youtube.

There's more oil in Alaska than in Saudi Arabia. The reason why Saddam was taken out was he didn't play along with the elites. It's got everything to do with control and very little to do with oil or money. Also, the oil companies are not the bad guys, although they do bad things. The elites have a knife against the back of these oil companies.

Remember, the oil price is controlled and there's someone making more money oil than the oil companies!

Read the book online. Then watch his videos on video.google.com and youtube!