Kucinich discussing nationalizing the oil companies?

[Terran1212]

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=44311

Kucinich Takes To The House Floor To Fight Drilling In Alaska Artic Refuge



Washington, May 25 -


...

“It is time for new thinking. Instead of the oil companies taking over ANWR for drilling, we ought to be talking about taking over the oil companies. They have gouged the American people. They control our politics. They have ignored the growing global environmental crisis. The lust for oil has put us on a path to war.

“It is time for new thinking. We should be talking about a windfall profits tax, breaking up the oil monopolies, or even taking over the oil companies, not sacrificing ANWR.



--------

Good idea or bad? I think I'd support nationalization but I'm shocked to see any congressmen stand up for such a radical move.

[Drum]

1. No matter what you thought of his electioneering,

Kucinich is a fresh thinker, and courageous.

[Poppyseedman]

2. I hope you don't mind paying much more for your fuel

...because if the oil companies get nationalized the price will skyrocket.

Kucinich should understand this, he's a smart guy

[TahitiNut]

8. Nonsense.

That's a mere assertion without objective underpinnings of any kind.

[Poppyseedman]

39. Objective underpinnings ? Nonsense?

How about basic economics 101 or are you suggesting we just ignore them ?

I can easily explain why prices would go up.

Can you explain why prices go lower or remain stable if the oil company were nationalized?

[bvar22]

61. YES!!!

The US citizens would IMMEDIATELY save the $400Million cash outs to the CEOs and Upper Management!!!

Social Security runs with a less than 2% overhead.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Poppyseedman]

69. His obscene compensation was from stock options not from profits

It will translate to less than a penny per gallon

[Moochy]

128. so it cost the company less than the actual value

So the company's profits had nothing to do with the stock price?

[Walt Disney]

75. "Social Security runs with a less than 2% overhead...?"

:rofl:

Social Security is going bankrupt.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

116. Nice talking point.

The insolvency of SS has nothing to do with inefficiency.

Try these on:

"Liberals hate America!"
"You're either with us or against us!"
"Compassionate conservatism."
"Terra!"

[Walt Disney]

151. "The insolvency of SS has nothing to do with inefficiency."

My friend, it has everything to do with government inefficiency.

Unless, of course, you think that efficiency is best defined by how many votes can be purchased per $ squandered.

[Paulie]

157. It has to do with SPENDING on the eternal war against Islam and tax cuts

SS has been in surplus of billions for what, a decade? Instead we're spending it on the war on Islam and tax cuts for the 1%'ers.

Remember the LOCK BOX? I bet you do...

[Walt Disney]

160. What LOCK BOX...?

Lyndon Johnson moved the "trust fund" into the general fund back in 1964. Thus, your lock-box was picked 42 years ago and every administration/legislature (Democrat and Republican) since then has spent every $ of it.

If that money had been invested in any reasonably managed mutual fund, we would be rolling in the green stuff and SS would be solvent for years to come.

That, my friend, is how I would define efficiency.

[gully]

68. "I can easily explain why prices would go up."

Please do.

[Poppyseedman]

82. OK,

The global oil market is a commodities driven market. The price you pay at the pump is related to the price corporations pay in the future for a guaranteed price. The future price is based on government stability, capacity, oil reserves, demand and of course manipulation of all the aforementioned forces.

Pretend for a moment the world's largest consumer of water decided that it will nationalize all it water companies, 65% of the water needs to be imported to meet current demand because we can only produce 35% of our needs. Oil is such an emotional issue.

The government now controls all water coming and going and must buy at the current world price.

All of a sudden, people and business think "Whoa, where the hell are we going to get enough water to conduct our business and take care of our needs since my supplier {government} has no idea what my needs are"

People buy as much water as possible to make sure they have an adequate supply until the transition from private to public control is complete, which will take months, maybe years of haggling and lawsuits by people trying to protect their investments. Unless a dictator by fiat says, F' off

For the people on the thread who believe in the fairy tale thinking that government control means cost control within a global market, unfortunately supply and demand still dictate price, which will go up unless the government subsidized it and passes the cost on our children though deficient spending

At least at first the price will skyrocket because of increased demand and then level off to the price global manipulation will dictate, which now has nothing to do with Corporate America and everything to do with government manipulation.

[Terran1212]

83. So basically the normal hiccups that accompany nationalization?

Which can be managed with good planning.

[The_Warmth]

95. I really don't see...

our government, if nationalization unfolded, not being ready for such a transition. We DO have some of the brightest people in the world to figure things like this out, too bad they're not in charge now.

[eridani]

98. Supply and demand do not dictate short tem fluctuations

Like frinstance the current price-gouging. That can be fixed by government action, though long-term supply problems cannot.

[Marr]

74. *edited*

Found your post.

[Bjorn Against]

78. Private industry seeks to gain profit...

If we had a national oil company we would not have to pay the CEO of Exxon and the shareholders every time we fill up.

[donbrunton]

119. Really?

That\'s why petrol is US$0.30 cents a litre in Venezuala? Or a third the cost in China.

You are brainwashed.

[northzax]

127. Gasoline is more expensive

in real dollars, in either Venezeula or China than in the US.

$.30 litre (given that there are slightly fewer than 4 liters in a gallon) comes to $1.20/gallon. I'll give you a couple of pennies to make up the difference. Let's call it $1.17/gallon. My local gas station sells gas for $2.78 today. So a gallon of gas in Caracas, if your pricing is correct, costs 42% of the price of a gallon of gas in Washington, DC. Seems cheaper, right? but let's look a little closer.

The Per Capita income in Venezuela (adjusted for parity) is roughly $5800/year. in the US it is roughly $40,000/year. A gallon of gasoline costs the average Venezuelan .02% of his annual income. a gallon of gasoline in the US costs the average American .007% of her annual income. Gas is cheaper in the US, in real terms, than in Venezuela.

[ProfessorGAC]

154. Automatically Invalidated

Anyone who proposes that Economics 101 is the answer to anything that actually happens in the real world is someone who needs to be ignored, when it comes to economics.

Nationalization has not in the past, nor will it in the future, ever exhibit any leverage on the price at retail. The WORST that can happen is the price will stay the same as the profit motive erodes.

Until you can show proof, in the form of causative modeling, that nationalization will cause prices to rise, don't bother replying.

The Professor

[libertypirate]

9. Bull, don't play scare the shit out of people...

I would think we are beyond that...

PS. Considering that most nations which have nationalized their criminal oil industries are paying pennies on the dollar per gallon you should site some evidence instead play spout the scary bull.

[Poppyseedman]

40. Did it occur to you that the reason the countries that

nationalized their oil industries which are paying pennies on the dollar per gallon {which is not actually accurate} are PRODUCERS rather than CONSUMERS of oil.

Do you really think the producers of oil will charge less because the US government is now buying it instead of oil companies?

[Terran1212]

81. The US government doesn't have to run at insane profits, though

They can even run at recession to give cheaper oil to industries, bringing those up.

[Poppyseedman]

84. I know oil profits are the big boogie man on these threads, but

you are talking maybe 10 cents per gallon. The insane part is the volume of oil sold. Even at 1 cent per gallon profit, the oil companies would still make literally millions

[Terran1212]

89. But a public industry doesn't have to make any profit it all

It can purposely run at recession to provide cheaper gas when needed. A corporation is bound by law to make profit.

[Poppyseedman]

90. What do you do about the dividends the oil companies

are paying out if they make no profits ?

Literally millions of people will be affected?

[Terran1212]

91. I'm not an economics expert, but I think I do understand

What you are saying. I don't expect there to not be hiccups and problems with this kind of system, especially if it's federally and nationally handled.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. You mean like the cost of healthcare when it 's nationalized?

Fortunately, it's so cheap here as compared to those poor European countries.

[Poppyseedman]

41. Health care is not a commodity like oil

Apples and oranges

What makes you think health care costs will go down if it is nationalized? I agree it might, but there is no sure bet.

[Solon]

56. Actually, that's pretty easy to see, for Health Care...

Our private system has an overhead cost of about 20-30%, when you calculate in the insurance companies, private hospitals, and big pharma overpricing drugs while using government research. Compare this to Medicare, with a total overhead cost of about 3%, or Canada's system, with an overhead cost of 5%, and unlike in private systems, the cost savings would actually translate to lower prices for the government to pay.

[ProfessorGAC]

155. Yes It Is

Wrong again. Perhaps you should give up. It's a service, but meets the definition of a commodity.
The Professor

[stevedeshazer]

21. How so?

You mean Lee Raymond, chairman of Exxon, won't make $400,000,000 next year?



http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PainAtThePump/story?id=1841989

[Poppyseedman]

42. I certainly agree his compensation was outrageous

but what does it have to do with the price of oil if the US government now owned all the oil companies ?

[stevedeshazer]

45. You're right that it wouldn't affect world prices

The market for oil is global.

But the profits are obscene. Surely addressing that issue would make at least some difference.

Right now, the flow of oil dollars goes directly into the pockets of those who control the flow of oil.

[Telly Savalas]

92. For Big Oil, net profit margins are in the 5-10% range

which is really not that outrageous. Granted this percentage translates into giant-ass numbers because of the ridiculously high quantity of oil consumption, but on a percentage basis, the numbers are in line with other businesses that nobody complains about.

Kucinich is one of the best Democrats we've got, but I think it's kind of sad that he's jumped on board the "I demand to create smog as cheaply as possible" demagoguery bandwagon. Our energy crisis is a long-term problem that needs long-term solutions. For the last 50 years we've been making the same 3 mistakes which result in the overdependence on a dirty non-renewable energy source: we don't invest in public transit, new development is based on a moronic car-first suburban sprawl model, and not enough resources are dedicated towards alternative energy. These things must change. So long as the focus is on myoptic bitching about prices at the pump, these things won't change and we'll continue to be screwed.

Since the benefits of long-term programs will take a while to kick in, relief will obviously be needed for working families who are squeezed by higher prices. Artificially deflating gas prices isn't the way of doing this though, because it removes incentives to conserve oil and doesn't target only the people who need help. Is it really sound policy for the government to fight so that some rich asshole can save a hundred bucks a month driving his Hummer everywhere? A needs-based program that sends a check in the mail every couple of weeks sounds like a better idea.

[heartofthesiskiyou]

103. 5-10% profit margin are contrived

talking points put out by the oil companies. What they do is invest. Those amounts don't show up as profits but really are profits. Their investments are tax write offs and are "legitimate operating costs of doing business" just like ink cartridges and the the phone bill. Only these moneys are big assets like storage tanks, ships, diversification in other industries, etc. etc.

The fact is the public is being raked over the coals even worse then they are letting it appear.

[Stevepol]

48. I agree! If the govt owned the oil companies, our price at the pump

would skyrocket. In weeks it would be $3 a gallon or ...Wait a minute!?

Of course, if you own an industry you can always set the prices yourself regardless of the so-called market forces . . Wait a minute. Don't we already do that with the utilities?

I know. It's the bureaucrats in DC. Once they start operating something it's bound to be corrupt. What we need is some good old-fashioned honest capitalism: Enron, Lincoln Savings & Loan, . . . Wait a minute!?

I'm running out of ideas. Help me!

[Poppyseedman]

52. My point is pretty easy to understand

If the US Government owned all the oil companies, what would change?

As consumers of oil, we import 65 % of our use, we will still pay what the producers of oil charge in an global market, so the cost of a barrel is still be based on the commodity market. No saving !

The distribution system would be the same, so those costs would not go down. No saving !

The actual oil companies profits are only 6 to 10 cents a gallon, so we might save that? of course that would destroy the mutual fund markets many people depend on so the US government will still need to show a profit!!!

What will change is the efficiencies built into the marketplace and the way oil is bought.

Anytime a service or product has a guaranteer to pay, like the U.S. government, the cost ALWAYS, I repeat ALWAYS, goes up because there is a guarantee profit margin for the producer. Plus the instability of the transition from private to public ownership would drive up prices

At best the price would remain the same, but I won't bet a plug nickel on it. End of lesson

[northzax]

129. and let's not forget

that the Government doesn't have much of an incentive to improve anything, to invest in the future, or find any alternatives whatsoever. Why would the government work to make anything more efficient? Why invest in exploration? why invest in cleaner technologies? not going to happen. Been to a VA hospital lately? seen an inner-city school? How's your local highway coming along?

look, open competition isn't always the easiest thing, in the short term, but it tends to work out, with decent regulation. Nationalizing the oil industry would be just about the stupidest reaction we can have.

[phylny]

114. Lee Raymond retired. There's a new CEO.

I found this article to be interesting (from Motley Fools):

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06052404.htm?logvisit=y&source=estmarhln001999?logvisit=y&source=estearhln001999&npu=y&bounce=y

[Lefty48197]

24. You are wrong.

You don't believe in the power of group buying? Removing profits from the equation? How about removing exorbitant profits? Nationalization would LOWER the prices we pay for gasoline, because so much of the cost is related to the monopolization of the refineries and the distributing pipelines.

[stepnw1f]

85. Ding Ding Ding

Exactly.

[Fovea]

26. TERRRA!!! TERRAAA!!!11!

If we nationalize oil, the terrorists win!!!

Or not.

[Poppyseedman]

44. Not really

I don't think the terrorist really care who buys the oil that funds their activities.

[stepnw1f]

86. Yeah Really

I hope we do nationalize oil. Fuck corporatocracy and their profits. Your system is shit and meaningless to us. Things will have to change...

[rucky]

104. Yeah, private for-profit corporations can do if for so much cheaper.

there's a oily film on top of your kool-aid.

[rman]

107. Yeah like in Venezuela - and Saudi Arabia...

Gas prices around the world
Think you pay a lot for gas? Perhaps you'd prefer to live in Venezuela.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – Gasoline prices in the United States, which have recently hit record highs, are actually much lower than in many countries. Drivers in some European cities, like Amsterdam and Oslo, are paying nearly 3 times more than those in the U.S.

The main factor in price disparities between countries is government policy, according to AirInc, a company that tracks the cost of living in various places around the world. Many European nations tax gasoline heavily, with taxes making up as much as 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, said a spokesperson for AirInc.

In a few Latin America and Middle-East nations, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens, he said. All prices updated March, 2005.

Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
...
Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91
...
Venezuela Caracas $0.12

<more>

[Toots]

124. When it has happened in other countries the exact opposite has occured.

On what do you base such an assumption? :shrug:

[northzax]

130. name one single net importer of oil

who has a nationalized industry. One.

When you're a next exporter, the game is different.

[Toots]

152. Venezuela

They have been importing oil for over a year now. They also export oil just as the USA does.

[northzax]

153. why would Venezuela import oil?

their official production statistics say they produce 3 million bbls a day, and only use 500,000 domestically. Why are they importing?

and are they a net importer?

[jwirr]

3. If this idea catches on I hope he is watching his back. I do not

trust the cheney and the oil idiots.

[NEOBuckeye]

6. By the time this happens, Cheney and Co. won't matter

They'll either be rotting in prison cells, or six feet under. Either way, it will be a tremendous step forward.

[stellanoir]

4. "radical move" ???

The oil companies have radically destroyed everything at the expense of everyone.

I think it's a brilliant idea and is long overdue.

[Terran1212]

62. I also think it's a good idea, but

compared to our normal political establishment, this is radical. Not a bad sort of radical but definitely radical.

[sarahlee]

125. Why "radical" proposals are needed

There was a great piece on Daily Kos about the need to kind of embrace the "radical ideas" of the left.

Some quotes:

the GOP knows that the middle DOES matter. They know that by playing to their base in very well-crafted ways, they can shift the very definition of what the middle is. By introducing radicalism into the public discourse (and taking initial heat for it), whatever used to be radical within this context becomes moderate by comparison.

Systematically, piece by piece, the GOP takes what had been considered impossibly radical positions and makes them worthy of consideration just by talking about them--and then makes what had been considered outside possibilities truly possible. Now, ....

But the important thing to remember is that the Republicans are carrying out this same exercise with every public policy debate today--from invading Iran to making birth control illegal to eliminating Social Security. The once unthinkable becomes possible--and they don't care if they take some heat for it initially.

Regretably, the Dems, for the most part, run away and publicly discount their furthest left voices. Republicans never do.

[Kipling]

5. IMHO that's actually a bad idea. The corruption would be horrible.

Imagine the endless repercussions of placing an major oil refinery, for example. Other places would complain, the place that was chosen would always vote for the party in power. Or imagine the appointment of the CEO - it would be done on purely political grounds.
I think they should be kept private but heavily regulated.

[w4rma]

32. I must admit that it couldnt be any worse than the folks who currently own

and operate big oil in America. They appear to be about as evil as they come, *and* they have more power than anyone else in the world, it would seem, considering America's foreign policy and energy policy are whatever they dictate.

[bigluckyfeet]

38. That's a Great Idea

Go for it.

[sarahlee]

137. See

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1302508&mesg_id=1307562

[ContraBass Black]

7. I don't see nationalization solving our problems,

But I do think it would complicate things.

[Zorra]

10. Great idea. Oil companies are the sponsors of fascism worldwide.

Nationalizing the voting process needs to come first, however, or nothing constructive will ever be done toward reversing the damage done by republicans over the past 6 years.

[LouisianaLiberal]

11. This is a brave man.

But even mentioning such a thing could be a politician's undoing. Corporate media will go apoplectic, attempt to discredit and minimize him, call him a communist, etc. But because they will ignore this statement, they won't see him as dangerous unless it gets play elsewhere.

Edit: When countries have tried to nationalize their oil industry in the past, the oil companies get the US to do their bidding and overthrow the government and install a puppet government. The US will never nationalize the oil industry.

[MuseRider]

14. Neither one of those outcomes would be new

to Kucinich. First they blast him into smithereens then they ignore him as insignificant. He is used to it and still he continues.

[sarahlee]

134. Two Diaries at Kos that you might find interesting

Cheney and Jefferson both tied to Nigerian bribery scandals??

In looking at how the William Jefferson bribery scandal is related to Halliburton-Dick Cheney shenanigans involving millions of dollars in bribes to Nigerian government officials (and god knows who else), I realize the whole thing might sound outlandish. So as you read on, know that my facts/quotes come from a variety of sources:

And

PNAC Co-Founder Endorses Dems in '08

Robert Kagan is the co-founder with William Kristol of the Project for the New American Century and he thinks it will be better for America if the Democrats win the 2008 contest for the Presidency. If that surprises you, you haven't been paying attention. As far as the PNAC crew goes, power isn't about being a Republican or a Democrat, it's about owning both parties. And, fortunately for us, Kagan is spectacularly upfront about this. To understand his mindset it's important to understand that he doesn't divide the world up into left and right, but into interventionist and isolationist. Kagan has representatives in the Democratic Party. They can loosely be described as the members of the Democratic Leadership Council and the writers at The New Republic.

These opinion leaders consider America to be the 'indispensable nation' and they consider it vital to world peace and security that America maintain its role in the world. For example, it's critical that we maintain military bases from Okinawa, to Tashkent, to Kandahar, to Baku, to Turkey, Baghdad, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, to Eritrea. From the outside, it looks like they benefit from their association or investments in the companies that do business in those countries, or the companies that arm our military to defend themselves in foreign lands and equip our home defenses to protect against the resentment our occupations cause. But, from the inside, it's more complicated. It's about the evils of communism, or fascism, or Islamo-fascism, or whatever is required as a rhetorical tool next week.

Kagan is part of a literal cabal of people in Washington (in Congress, in thinktanks, in this case, the Washington Post's editorial pages) that assure that any new administration's 'options' are limited and that their approach will not be stunningly different from Bush's. These are the folks that brought you the stalemated Korean War and the need for permanent bases in the south, the disastrous Vietnam War, the Committee on the Present Danger, and Team B. They employ journalists like Judith Miller to write about anthrax, and journalists like Peter Beinert to advocate a tougher foreign policy line from Democrats. They love and contibute to politicians like Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, and Jane Harman. As long as they can control the debate, assure a centrist nominee from the Democrats, and keep the level of fear in the public high, their racket is safe, even if the people in the World Trade Center were not.

Some may see this as a typical leftist critique. But it's more than that. This is how Washington works, how power wields itself, how the Democrats are co-opted, and how we keep repeating our mistakes by involving ourselves in costly foreign entanglements.

Perhaps the most flamboyant and successful of their campaigns was the one they used to convince us that we defeated the Soviet Union through military spending. It had nothing to do with the superior example our society made to the world through our civil liberties, personal freedoms, prosperity, and human rights advocacy. Nor did it have anything to do with the Soviets poor example and lack of these things. No, no. We brought the Soviets to their knees by spending billions on a failed missile shield and the V-22 Osprey.

In the comments:

The PNAC worldview is a front. It's a mirage. It serves a different purpose that the purpose it purports to support. It's not about Zionism as its critics so often contend, but about money. It's about shaping the mind of the public, and that is where the Straussian stuff comes into play.

The DLC (as it pertains to foreign policy) is just another face or mask of the same phenenomon.

So, you're right to say that the DLC worldview is not exactly aligned with the neo-conservative one. But the PNAC is almost as happy to use the DLC's mask as their own.

They would rather the DLC control the Democratic Party than the Bushies destroy the brand of both PNAC and the DLC.

[sarahlee]

136. Another on the same subject

NeoCons and the Democratic Party

In the comments there:

Saturday, May 27, 2006 by the Los Angeles Times
Strong Signs of Rift Among Democrats
Support for a Challenger to Longtime Sen. Joe Lieberman Indicates Tensions Over Iraq War
by Ronald Brownstein

...
With the involvement of these groups, the face-off between Lieberman and Lamont in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary has emerged as the focal point of tensions between Democratic liberals and centrists over the party's direction.

"This is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "It will have repercussions for the 2008 presidential campaign and whether centrists will feel comfortable within the Democratic Party."...

...
Wittmann said that if Lamont and his allies succeed in ousting Lieberman, "it would be devastating to the Democratic Party" by suggesting that centrists are no longer welcome.

"This shows that is trying to precipitate a civil war within the party," he said.

[LouisianaLiberal]

140. Thanks. You should link to this in a separate post.

It confirms that the word "centrist" no longer has any meaning.

[Caution]

12. Short of a revolution there is NO way this will happen

[Vidar]

13. Only trouble is that the government is as corrupt as Big Oil.

[EVDebs]

15. Howzabout a national 'Permanent Fund' for all Americans ?

Socialist Alaskan residents all get a piece of the oil royalties annually...What are we, chopped liver ?

[MH1]

28. I think that is an idea that has a better chance than nationalization.

And it would serve much the same purpose and perhaps work better overall.

[northzax]

131. does your state produce oil?

if not, why would you get royalties?

[EVDebs]

149. CA, yes, produces oil. Yes, I'd probably get royalties but would

gladly let the rest of the USofA share in the royalties, even though Alaskans don't.

[northzax]

150. you do get royalties, actually

about $160 million in the last fiscal year. It goes into the state operating fund. it's about 12.5% of the value of all oil extracted from state owned lands in the state.

additional royalties of about $75 million were paid to the federal government on oil taken from federal land in California.

[EVDebs]

156. Uh, look at the tax write-offs the oil co's get for Ag company fronts

This is mentioned in Marc Reisen's excellent book Cadillac Desert btw. No, WE get left holding the bag so to speak, northzax.

[northzax]

158. sounds like a state government problem to me

the companies are paying royalties, but tax breaks offset them. Stop the tax breaks, and you get to keep the royalties.

your point was that you don't get the royalties from the oil, and my point is that you do. Just your state choose to squander them on tax breaks.

[EVDebs]

159. State and federal tax breaks. Just a part of the $10 Billion subsidy oil

companies get:

""Yesterday, the President and some Republicans called for eliminating the $2 billion dollars in tax breaks that Congress passed as part of the energy bill last August. Some Democrats have called for a repeal of oil and gas tax breaks worth more than $10 billion dollars over the next five years. Earlier this week, Bush stated some of his ideas to address the problem."" taken from,

Friday, April 28th, 2006
Has Global Oil Production Reached Maximum Capacity? A Debate on Peak Oil
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/28/1439240

You seem to be very 'state's rights' on this very federal problem, northzax. What is your solution ? A state-by-state hodgepodge as currently occurs, status quo ?

[dweller]

16. go get 'em DK!

:kick: & R!


dp

[welshTerrier2]

17. been there; done that ...

Kucinich is absolutely right ... he's right for three key reasons ...

first, oil, at least for now, is part of our national life-blood, i.e., it's a critical commodity ...

second, big oil has forced policies in this country, like drug suppliers do to their junky customers, to keep us dependent on oil as our primary source of energy ...

third, until we develop alternative fuels, we need the "bigness" to keep us competitive internationally ... i'm not sure smaller companies, although i like weakening the power and the stranglehold of big oil, will be able to compete effectively for oil with our global competitors ... so nationalizing big oil is the way to go ...

for those interested, i wrote a thread about nationalizing big oil last August ... the arguments in that post are very different to those above ... the thread had 127 responses ... it's obviously a popular and important topic ... it's great that Kucinich raised the issue ... if Democrats can't even discuss themes like this as a party, we're never going to bring about change in this country ... here was the original OP and a link to the thread:

source: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/12

let me start out by saying that i'm no economist and i hope those with a stronger background in economics can add something to this thread ...

the proposition: let's nationalize the big oil companies ...

do i seriously believe either Democrats or republicans will ever be interested in pushing this idea? no, i don't ...

it's interesting, though, that with all the current fervor for "free" markets and good old fashioned capitalism, some obvious abuses go largely unnoticed ...

let's make a list ...

first, and probably most important, our government lives and breathes to cater to the greedy whims of mega-corporations, especially big oil ... these companies are not "the national interest"; they represent a narrow group of stockholders who seek to maximize profits no matter what the costs to the nation ...

second, let's talk about the massive subsidies of big oil that we've seen spent in Iraq ... the US goes to war and spends and spends and spends ... the result: all time record profits in the oil industry ... don't see the connection? well, there is a very direct connection ... $200 billion could have bought a whole lot of conservation measures, energy tax incentives, and investment in "earth friendly" technology ... but, nope, we went to war ... i've read several articles that tie the RECORD PROFITS in the oil industry to the price of a barrel of oil ... and why has the price of a barrel of oil risen so sharply? simple ... market instability caused by the military and political instability in Iraq ... you couldn't have written a better script to help the oil companies ...

so, "free" marketers, the "free" market is anything but ... our government has underwritten the profits made by big oil to the tune of more than $200 billion ... the idea that a bunch of capitalists are running around competing for the consumers' dollars in an unencumbered "free" market is total nonsense ... what you really have going on is blatant crony capitalism and an abuse of your government's democratic institutions ... what you really have going on is an imperialistic foreign policy for the sole benefit of trans-national corporations ...

and third, in nationalizing the oil industry and removing the "profit motive", the federal government would have fewer incentives to cater to the oil industry opening the door to a more rational program of conservation and investment in alternative energy sources ... with a "free" market in the oil industry, that road is essentially blockaded ...

we need to take back our government and our country from those who buy our elected officials and have the clout to direct policy for their own greed ... changes such as outlawing paid lobbyists, which we used to refer to as bribing government officials, and more restrictive campaign finance reforms would be helpful but will not solve the problem ... greed, money and power have a way of circumventing these controls ... so, a good starting point would be nationalizing the oil industry ... energy policy needs to serve the best interests of the country; not the best interests of a narrow group of corporate stockholders ...

comments?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. But..but..that would mean..EEEK!..SOCIALISM!

What a dreadful thought. That we might actually own the oil that we already own!!!

[earth mom]

20. Wow-a lone voice in the wilderness wanting to do the right thing

for the good people of this country! Bravo! :applause:

[Lefty48197]

22. Give em hell Dennis. We need MORE leaders like you.

"Will we... ...come to regret that we have never claimed our right to control over our own natural resources, our own environment, our own nation?”

[stevedeshazer]

23. Can anyone here who opposes this idea to explain to me why it's bad?

Those of you who posted in this thread saying it's a bad idea have not posted ANYTHING AT ALL supporting your argument.

Come on, tell us why?

[eallen]

33. I wonder. Which oil companies does Kucinich plan to nationalize?

Royal Dutch Shell? British Petroleum? The Canadian oil and gas trusts? Aramco? Citgo, which is owned largely from Venezuela?

I find it ironic that those who are most upset about American imperialism to defend oil supplies abroad speak so blithely about nationalizing "the oil companies," most of which aren't American. American oil production peaked in 1971. Nothing Congress can do will change that. We're importing oil from abroad because that's where the production capacity is.

And exactly what does Kucinich propose? Most of the oil companies are publicly owned. Is the intent simply to sieze the stock? There is a civil liberty issue with that: the fifth amendment prevents the federal government from taking private property "for public use, without just compensation." I assume you don't much care about individuals holding oil company stock. But why should someone whose Roth IRA is invested largely in Exxon-Mobil be punished, but not her neighbor whose retirement accounts are in Whole Foods and treasury bonds? And what about pension funds? If a pension fund loses 5% of its value because the US government siezes the oil companies, should the workers simply take a 5% cut in their pensions? Or should the government make up the loss?

Well, perhaps Kucinich just wants the government to buy these companies. Every shareholder gets the publicly traded price on some declared day, and now the US government owns these companies. This would take a lot of money, but any increase in the public debt is offset by the fact that the government now owns these huge assets.

So, then what? Should the government sell the oil cheap, encouraging its use, and creating shortages? Should it sell the oil dear? But, wait. Isn't that the complaint about the oil companies? And what if it turns out that the oil companies don't work as efficiently, when run by the government?

Ah, well. I'm sure it will all go swimmingly. :eyes:

[stevedeshazer]

35. Thanks. I was looking for a cogent opposition view, and you delivered.

And thanks for calling me "Dear"!

Discussion is good.

Now, you've correctly identified the losers, the stockholders and investors.

Who are the losers if things remain the way they are? Clearly, consumers.

How could this system of "winner-take-all" be changed?

I don't have the answers, and I don't claim to.

There are obviously significant obstacles to the nationalization of energy, but other countries are successful. We've got to figure out another way, because the current system is breaking the American consumer.

[eallen]

43. How are the consumers losing, with things the way they are?

Let me suggest one thing that isn't the answer: oil company profits. Those amount to a few pennies a gallon at the pump. If the government took over the oil companies tomorrow, and eliminated this profit, consumers would save only a little. But for how long? Everyone seems to assume that the oil companies aren't good at what they do, and that the government could keep doing it indefinitely, with the same efficiency. I am leary of that assumption.

Beyond that, what exactly do you think the government could do to make the situation better for consumers? Imagine a simplistic scenario where there is a huge valve to a supply of oil, that the government can close or open, up to some maximum flow, M. And the government gets to set the price. Now, if the US were like Venezuela or Kuwait, where there is far more oil capacity than its own citizens want, the government could set the domestic price quite low, and sell the rest abroad. But we're not in that situation. The US wants and uses about three times as much oil as it produces. So President Kucinich names you Czar of the US Dept of Oil. You open up the tap all the way. How do you set the price? It seems to me there are several options:

(1) You let the market decide. You sell the oil to distributors and traders, getting as much dollar as you can, while selling as much as comes out of the spigot. Result: not much different from now. Assuming your efficiency at producing the oil is the same as the companies you acquired. But you get to be Oil Czar, and that's a good thing. :) Maybe you'll appoint me Deputy Czar.

(2) You set the price higher than market. Now, you don't sell all the oil you produce, or at least, not all the oil you can produce. That might not be a bad idea. It would encourage conservation, and lower carbon emissions. Of course, the consumers would be pissed off, because President Kucinich nationalized the oil companies, put a dent in their pension, and now is selling gasoline at $5/gallon.

(3) You set the price lower than market. Now, the problem is that people want more than you can produce. The price is great, but there are shortages. You can somewhat control where the shortages are -- heating oil one month, filling stations the next, aviation fuel after that. But there will be shortages. That has been tried, and the results are well known. Is that going to help the consumer? They get gasoline at $1.50 a gallon, but they have to wait in line to get it, and if they aren't one of the earliest to the filling station, they go without. Of course, the black market will help alleviate that situation.

If I were Deputy Czar, I'd go for door #1, and then generate a lot of propaganda, telling people how much worse things would be if the oil companies were still in charge.

:hippie:

[stevedeshazer]

49. Door #2

Discourage consumption.

I don't assume that the oil companies aren't good at what they do. They are very good at it. But their strategy encourages maximum depletion of a finite resource. We're eating our seed corn.

We don't need M (maximum flow) but m (minimum flow) by conserving the remaining reserves of oil and directing dollars to alternative energy strategies.

M guarantees that the crash of the economy is worse than m.

Then President Kucinich is impeached by a Congress elected by angry mobs of suburban commuters and you and I lose our jobs. :)

And twenty years from now, it's Mad Max Thunderdome time for our kids and grandkids. :(

[eallen]

51. In that case, here is a better idea, that also helps the poor here & now..

Don't bother nationalizing the oil companies. That's just a distraction. If you want to change how people use energy, do the following:

(1) Put a $1,000 tax on every car sold, new and used, excluding only (a) government purchases, (b) vehicles that become licensed taxis, (c) salvage purchase, and (d) vehicles that get more than 50 mpg.

(2) Use this tax to fund a $50/month "public transit subsidy" to every adult American who has not owned any car for more than six months. Obviously, that is meant to offset the bus fares, train tickets, shoe leather, or Peugot maintenance that that individual uses to get around. But make it a straight cash stipend that can be used in any form or fashion. The homeless drunk can sign up and use it for wine and beer. The shut-in who never goes out can use it to upgrade his cable. The guy living on his sailboat can use it... well, likely for wine and rum . But you only get it if you don't own a car. It's a reward for finding other ways to get about.

Run on that platform, and I'll guarantee you'll carry NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco. ;D

:hippie:

[hippywife]

93. How about changing your #2 to read

that the tax goes to create and improve public transportation and its accessability for all? That I could get behind.

[TahitiNut]

47. Well, let's take a closer look.

First of all, who 'owns' the oil in the United States? The oil offshore, the oil beneath the sovereign territory of the U.S., the oil in ANWR and other public lands, indeed, virtually all the oil pumped in the United States is 'owned' by the People of The United States, and the oil companies exist solely through a system of entitlements, including oil "leases" for which they pay virtually nothing compared to the profits gained by selling at a market price set by a world wide demand for oil and not coupled to the cost of production. The actual cost of producing a barrel of "West Texas Crude," for example is not at all increased when OPEC decides to reduce production. (The fact of the matter is that individuals don't actually 'own' real estate outright. Title to real estate is literally an entitlement, called a fee simple estate.)

What is a "system of entitlements"? Entitlements exist solely by virtue of legal fictions and the coercive force of government. People try to characterize a share of stock as something equal to real property and it's "value" as something intrinsic. That's a fable. The market price of a share of stock has an "intrinsic value" similar to a bet that the Pistons will win the NBA playoffs. It's an ephemeral. Ask Enron. The "property" of an oil company is actually the tangible assets and the book value of those tangible assets. Absolutely all "value" beyond that is a "value" that's a creature of government itself - created in the interests of the powerful and the wealthy. (The top 1% of wealthy households in the U.S., i.e. the "investor class," 'own' about 60% of all business equity and financial securities. The bottom 80% of wealthy households, i.e. the "working class," own about 10% of all business equity and financial securities. That's an average wealth and power ratio of about 500-to-1 for 'investor' vs. 'worker'.)

Revoke the leases and evict the companies and watch what happens to the "value" of that stock. Revoke their business licenses and watch. It is the People themselves who, through their government, create the very "value" of those companies - creating a 'value' without equitable compensation for the overwhelmingly vast majority of those people who're "of, by, and for" that government.

At some point, a system of entitlements that has become so overwhelmingly inequitable and unjust must collapse under its own lopsidedness - usually through violent revolution. It seems to me that the nationalization of the companies, revoking the privatization of inequitable entitlements and compensating the 'investors' for solely the book value of the tangible assets of the companies, is a far more peaceful approach than violent revolution. I think that's what Chavez thought, too. But maybe the average Venezuelan is more politically attuned than the average brain-dead American, huh? :shrug:

[eallen]

57. Oh, my, you're right -- values would plummet.

Unfortunately, not just the values of the oil companies. You're absolutely correct that stocks, bonds, and their values reflect a sort of "concensus reality," about how things will work in the future. If the US were to start following your proposals about how to organize its economy, the concensus reality would quite correctly start to estimate that it would no longer be the economic powerhouse it has been in the past. The dollar would drop. US bonds would drop. Real estate would slide. Foreign capital would go elsewhere. And many Americans would follow it.

Fortunately, I don't much worry that any of that will come about.

:hippie:

[TahitiNut]

60. Here's an example of abuses in the system.

Oil Lease Concentration
Posted on Monday, May 31st, 2004 at 11:16 am. Filed Under Fed Data.

David Pace of the Associated Press analyzed records from the Department of Interior to find that “a single New Mexico family and a dozen big oil companies, including one once headed by Commerce Secretary Don Evans, now control one-quarter of all federal lands leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States despite a law intended to prevent such concentration.” The federal government agency in charge of overseeing such property gave permits even though it knew that several of the firms were in violation of the law. “The government can cancel leases held by companies that exceed the cap. Agency officials acknowledge they have never done that nor denied a company’s request for more time to comply.” The list of top oil and gas lease holders is included.
http://www.thescoop.org/archives/2004/05/31/oil-lease-concentration/

So, the provision for cancellation of oil leases already exists in the law. (At least until the wealthy interests buy enough legislators to bury a repeal of this provision in some bill that's entitled "Motherhod and Apple Pie.") When, however, the law is selectively NOT ENFORCED and the result is the increasing concentration of wealth and power, we have yet another example of the best government big money can buy. Isn't it about time that the decades-long pillage of the People's pockets is reversed?

[rman]

113. Values already are dropping,

thanks to the wonders of the "free market" (outsourcing, globalization): the dollar is dropping, real estate is slipping, both US and foreign capital is going elsewhere.

[eallen]

118. Don't mistake fluctuations and trends.

We have been in a bear market the last six years. That surprises a lot of people, who look at the DOW as once again near its past highs, forgetting that they need to adjust for six years of inflation to see its real value. And it shouldn't surprise; given our history of the last six years. But that will correct.

[rman]

120. It remains to be seen if this is a fluctuation or a downward trend

I see no reason for optimism regarding future developments.

[stevedeshazer]

71. Could not agree more

We, the People, OWN IT.

[rman]

112. Otoh, it can be argued that natural oil reserves on US soil are not

private property. It can also be argued that much of the wealth that's concentrated in US oil corporations is ill-gotten, which would shed a different light on "just compensation".

True, it is a complicated problem, and i doubt nationalizing the US oil industry would make much of a difference as long as the government is run by corporations.

[phylny]

115. Smartest thing I've read on this thread yet. n/t

[WilliamPitt]

54. One thing

is that there is a huge difference between being a consumer of oil and a producer of oil. The nations we've seen subsidizing virtually their whole societies via nationalized oil revenues - Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Norway (yeah, I was surprised at that, but they're the third largest exporter in the world) to name a few - are producers. They are pulling hundreds of billions of dollars out of the ground every year. That's how they can afford to nationalize and pay for everything with the revenues.

I suppose we could become producers...if we wanted to plant oil rigs all throughout the Gulf Coast, out in the Grand Banks, all through Alaska and a lot of other places. But we aren't going to do that, so we will remain consumers until we become the main producers of alternate energies.

I may be wrong about this, but I don't think so.

[stevedeshazer]

70. Yeah, that's true

We've largely expended our natural resources, so we're subject to the world market, as far as our petroleum consumption and the attendant issues concern us.

Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, I've lived long enough to see entire economies of large scale dry up and die. All the low-hanging fruit such as old growth timber, fisheries, and farming have gone the way of the buggy whip.

Good point regarding our ability to be oil-dependent for a short time. Throughout the Industrial Revolution and until the post World War II era, the U.S. economy could depend upon resource extraction.

No more.

Sucking the last hours of ancient sunlight out of the ground (nod to Thom Hartmann) is a short-term fix. If we are to survive as a species, we must move to a sustainable economy.

That's going to hurt all but the über-rich.

[Hippo_Tron]

101. See my post (#100)

[Fovea]

25. Thank the gods

i have been saying this since 2000.

Yes, nationalize the Oil, Coal, Nat Gas, and all energy producing industries. Profit out, revenue for universal health care in.

[partylessinOhio]

37. I agree with you on the Oil, Coal, Nat Gas and all energy producing

industries. We should also add water. I oppose companies going into foreign countries and buying up the water rights and soaking poor people for water.

There is no limit of what man will do against other men.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

27. Good luck with that.

Democrats don't even have the balls to vote against Bush's CIA nominee (Hayden) -- and they're going to magically nationalize the corporations who own the government already?

Right. Next thing you know, my dog will be head of my household.

[BayCityProgressive]

29. I support this idea and Kucinich

it is not a far out of the mainstream idea. The majority of Canadians support it. The oil in Norway is nationalized. This will never happen though. I will be shocked if any other Dems support this idea.

[stevedeshazer]

34. That doesn't mean we shouldn't float the idea.

By being a naysayer, you give those same Democrats cover.

[rman]

30. Telling it like it is

That's why i like the man.

[Daphne08]

31. I told my husband we should do this!

[Tace]

36. No Need To Nationalize The Oil Companies -- Nationalize The Oil

Simply exert firm national control of the oil itself. Contract the oil companies to extract, refine and deliver the final product at a fair price with minimal environmental impact.

[Pharaoh]

46. Regulation!!!!

Most of our problems in the USA began under Reagan's deregulation and his attack on Unions

Deregulation caused Enron and this horrible health care situation,

We must regulate these greedy corrupt bastards before they bleed the treasury to collapse............

Which is imminent if we don't have a shit load of people wake up real soon!...........

[sandnsea]

55. That's the way it is

That's why Alaskans get that big check every year. The rest of the country's oil royalties go into the treasury. Obviously we aren't charging them enough, which is the purpose of the windfall tax.

[Terran1212]

63. That's supposedly already done

But oil companies likely block it being done well.

[LWolf]

50. Any Congressman but Dennis Kucinich.

It's not a surprise for him, considering his record.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[NNN0LHI]

53. People who don't own oil company stocks will like this idea

People who do own oil company stocks won't.

Don

[robertpaulsen]

58. Once its clear the world has passed Peak Oil, DK will seem like a prophet.

You're not going to see this happen anytime this year. But if Peak Oil occurs within the next ten years, as ASPO has predicted, Dennis Kucinich will no longer be a lone voice from the wilderness. I am glad to see him planting this seed into the American consciousness. I've always considered him to be a visionary, a man ahead of his time.

Bravo, Dennis Kucinich! :applause:

[IndigoE]

59. At least talk about it.

Lets scare the B'geesus out of them. The oil companies practice capitalism as a "Socialize the costs, privatize the profits" pyramid scheme. Even if we were to socialize the profits in proportion to costs, it would be the equivalent of a windfall profits tax. The public is presently being treated like a DUPE. How about the costs of this war?? ...those gazillion $$ would be put that on the socialized costs column.

:evilgrin:

[newyawker99]

64. Hi IndigoE!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[cushla_machree]

65. I would agree but.......

The US. doesn't really have its own source of oil. We still have to import it in, and we don't own the oil in the sudan, exon or shell or whoever does (which is wrong but i could go on about that..).

If we were producing our own oil at a high volume, i would agree. All the utilities like water and electricity should be publicly owned. I think whatever oil is extracted from the us, the oil companies should have to lease it at a high rate. They pump it out for virtually nothing. But if they paid more, they would prolly make us pay more. So you could set up a system where they have to sell it to the US, who sells it to americans. And hell, i could care less if it was 5 dollars a gallon at that point, because the profit would be to the gov, and hey, lets fund out schools with that and then encourage alternative fuels. Oil should be expensive.

[progressoid]

66. Oh, that will happen................NOT

[JVS]

67. I agree with your analysis of the situation

You get extra points for brevity.

[meow2u3]

72. Right idea, wrong president

Even if an anti-privatization clause were put in the bill, Bush would sign it into law with a "signing statement" indicating he has no intent of following it. No change.

Bush will simply reprivatize the oil companies by offering them no-bid contracts.

It would be better with a Democratic president.

[Marr]

73. There would literally be assassinations of US politicians if this became

a likelyhood. This is something oil companies- and very likely the other sectors of wealth in America- would fight against to the point of murder.

[Walt Disney]

76. Bad idea. Kucinich should know better.

[happydreams]

77. One important thing this would do.

It would take our energy future out of the hands of the oil monopoly and open the way, truly open the way, for developing alternatives. Cost benefit analysis would include the cost of wars (presently being socialized)as well as the pump price and other private sector factors. When we factor in the horrendous mess of Iraq and other resource wars into the equation nationalizing could not possibly raise the "true price".

[northzax]

132. why?

if the government is selling oil, why would it fund alternatives? Why give a tax break to a wind farm, when that is literally taking money out of the pocket of the government? And independant people might try, I suppose, but you really can't compete with Uncle Sam on a dollar for dollar basis.

[happydreams]

148. Uncle Sam is us

if we care to get involved.

[Imajika]

79. Utterly stupid idea...

...that would not help US consumers one iota. Infact, this ridiculous idea would result in either no change or, more likely, HIGHER prices at the pump for Americans.

[rman]

106. In nations where oil is nationalized, gas is a lot cheaper then in the US.

For instance Venezuela.

[Imajika]

117. Venezuela...

..is an oil EXPORTER nation. They have all the oil they need for their own consumption. The USA is an oil IMPORTER nation. We don't have anywhere near the amount of oil we need for our own consumption. We are completely dependent on oil coming in to our nation to keep the American economy going. We aren't going to be able to set the price of oil coming in from Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc, etc, etc...

We could perhaps become an oil exporter nation, but then you'd have to be willing to drill all over the place including ANWR, throughout the Gulf of Mexico, off California - basically all the exact same places the GOP wants us to be drilling. I doubt your for doing that.

Further, don't assume the US oil companies don't know how to efficiently do their job. You may not like them, but they have enormous expertise. Take the profit motive out and hand the industry over to the government and the oil industry will almost surely run less, to even far less, efficiently than it does now.

There is perhaps a case for nationalizing certain sectors of the economy for national security reasons, but doing so would probably not benefit consumers. If the argument is about benefiting consumers at the pump, Kucinich's "nationalizing the oil companies" plan will not achieve that at all. Infact, Kucinich's plan would more than likely drive up consumers costs at the pump.

There are reasons Kucinich will never be taken seriously as a national candidate, promoting dopey plans like this is one of them.

[rman]

123. being an exporter does not explain the ~25 fold price difference

CNN
Gas prices around the world
Think you pay a lot for gas? Perhaps you'd prefer to live in Venezuela.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices /

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – Gasoline prices in the United States, which have recently hit record highs, are actually much lower than in many countries. Drivers in some European cities, like Amsterdam and Oslo, are paying nearly 3 times more than those in the U.S.

The main factor in price disparities between countries is government policy, according to AirInc, a company that tracks the cost of living in various places around the world. Many European nations tax gasoline heavily, with taxes making up as much as 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, said a spokesperson for AirInc.

In a few Latin America and Middle-East nations, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens, he said. All prices updated March, 2005.

Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
...
Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91
...
Venezuela Caracas $0.12

<more>

[Imajika]

138. Ya, it does...

Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are among the top 10 oil EXPORTER nations. They are oil independent. With that being the case they can set oil prices for their own populations at pretty much whatever they want. They are only dependent on refining power. If your an EXPORTER nation you can do pretty much whatever you want. You can base your oil use and sale on world market prices, or you can set prices high at home to achieve conservation or collect revenue and then sell the rest of your oil to whomever will pay the most, or you can set prices low at home to benefit your people for whatever political end you have in mind and then sell the rest of your oil to whomever will pay the most, or you can set your prices low at home and low to key nations abroad for whatever foreign policy goals you have (making other nations dependent on your discounted oil) and sell the rest for whatever the market will provide.

When you are an EXPORTER nation, you have lots of choices because you are completely oil independent. If you've got the refining power, you could literally give all your citizens nearly free gas - which certainly doesn't encourage conservation but goes a long way to buying off your population.

America is an IMPORTER nation. We can pay market prices or we can pay higher than market prices. Many Western European nations opt for higher than market prices so they tax gas heavily. This is done to encourage conservation, create more revenue for the government, etc.

So long as we are the worlds largest oil IMPORTER, nationalizing the US oil industry has zero chance of lowering prices for American consumers at the pump. That is, unless you want us to become an oil EXPORTER nation by drilling in ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico, off California, and pretty much anywhere else oil exists in the US.

As best I can see, Kucinich puts forth a populist "punish big oil" message that would not only NOT lower gas prices at the pump for consumers - it would probably drive prices up. Sometimes what sounds appealing just isn't good policy. During the last run up of gas prices, Hawaii imposed a price cap. The result was so disasterous it was repealed. This policy sounded good to some people (though history always shows this to be a stupid move), but it actually cost consumers money as it artificially held the price of gas high for a longer period of time than what the rest of Americans had to deal with.

edited for spelling

[rman]

141. Ven. and SA are not oil independent;

they need oil.
It's just that for their oil supply they are not dependent on other oil exporters.

[Imajika]

144. Umm, ya

..that is my point. They are oil independent. They are oil EXPORTER nations. Ofcourse they NEED oil to run their economies, but they don't need anyone else's oil.

We could do that too if your willing to drill ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico, off the California coast and in every other place oil reserves can be found within the US. I rather expect you don't want to do that, and at this time the majority of American's dont want to do that either. So long as we are the number one oil IMPORTER nation, nationalizing our own oil industry will not lower prices at the pump for consumers. So Kucinich's idea is nothing more than populist blather that is only useful if your goal is to punish "big oil". If your goal is to actually help consumers, there is nothing good about Kucinich's idea.

[libhill]

80. I would hope

that he steers clear of flying on any small private air craft for awhile -

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

88. This Should Be on the Home Page

Kick it DU!!!! Help bring this issue into the mainstream...

[Terran1212]

94. Nominate it

[BlooInBloo]

97. I have exactly ZERO idea whether or not this is a good idea....

.... But I'm completely down with discussing it...

Rock on.

[dweller]

96. Nationalize the Alternative Fuel Market first.

along with Solar, Wind, Bio, Renewable, etc.

then watch the old, greedy oil slicks try to jump on board when their profits fall.


Quite a block there, eh?

dp

[leftofthedial]

99. unbelievable

I agree with him (as usual)

but he had better stay out of small planes

he'd better not visit Texas or Florida

He might want to hire a food taster

[Hippo_Tron]

100. I disagree with Kucinich and here is why

Nationalizing industries is incredibly tempting because they can be regulated such that they benefit people and aren't concerned about profit.

My basic concern is that this is a slippery slope into letting the government have too much power. If they want to turn this country into a dictatorship, just cut off our fuel supply and we will be completely at their mercy.

I'm for nationalizing the health insurance industry (not the entire healthcare industry) because peoples' lives depend on it. But beyond that I'm weary about having the government take control of certain idustries.

An good alternative to this would be to start trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt style and make these guys actually compete with each other.

[rman]

105. We're already at the bottom of that other slippery slope;

the one where corporations have to much power - to the point where they practically own the government.

In a true healthy democracy this would not have happened.

[Hippo_Tron]

108. A fair point...

But two things to consider

1) Corporations will never try to make us bow to a fascist government by cutting off our fuel supply. That would cut into their profits.

2) As soon as we put a Democrat in the white house, we will not be at the bottom of that slope anymore. Sure, Democrats aren't going to be as hostile to the oil industry as we would like them too, but they know full well that no matter what they do, the oil industry will be supporting their GOP opponent in the next election and that alone will make them somewhat hostile to the industry. Basically, while things won't be terrible for oil companies with a Democrat in the white house, the president will at least not literally be in bed with the oil industry.

Again, I say the alternative is trust busting. Force these companies to actually compete with each other. Clean elections would also be a great step in the right direction.

[rman]

109. Right, corporations have other ways to make us bow to fascist government

Besides, all that the power elites ultimately want is power and wealth. Profits is just one way to get wealth, some form of slavery will do just fine as far as they are concerned.

[eridani]

102. When you talk about prices, you must specify long or short term effects

In the long run, the price of oil will rise because of peak oil and increasing demand by a large and still growing human population. In the short run, there is a substantial amount of price manipulation by oil companies--surely nobody thinks that the brownouts and atrocious energy price rises in CA a few years ago had anything to do with supply and demand? This is the problem Kucinich is proposing to solve by nationalization.

[Phrogman]

110. This is the only thing that could save America

and not a snowballs chance in hell of it happening.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

111. Kucinich is courageous in bringing...

...this issue to the table for discussion. It's worthy of consideration.

[Trish1168]

121. YES!! If only to make RW heads explode!!

The fact is that they deregulated the industry to the point where they do manipulate the supply. Yes, the market dictates the price, but if you manipulate the supply, then you affect the market.

The politics of this country would never allow for oil nationalization. These people have way too much money.

We have to take back democracy in a step-wise process.

1. Win back congress
2. Run progressives against DLC-ers
3. Back Gore as president (they are clearly terrified of him, based on recent attacks).
4. Then, using all our internet fundraising might....call for PUBLICLY FINANCED ELECTIONS AND ELECTION REFORM (paper ballots, hand counted).
5. Then if we get this far...we fight for lobby reform
6. Then after all this, there is a chance to re-regulate energy companies (and offer alternative energy).

They will always be against alternative energy, because the dollar will collapse when we stop buying oil. If the dollar collapses, we will demand sound money as an alternative (see home page of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas for an education on money....the dollar is connected to the oil). If we have sound money (where the dollar supply is fixed to keep it valued at a certain gold price)...it takes away their power!!!!! No more endless military spending. No more world domination. We'd have to face hard choices to fight a war.

That's why they're terrified of Gore. They see him as a threat. They'll try yet again to tarnish his character. If it doesn't work, they'll find a way to prevent him from having power.

They couldn't control JFK like they thought, and look what happened to him (he directly challenged the power of the federal reserve....the people who control the money have all the power).

[SnoopDog]

122. Oil and gasoline are a utility - just like electricity and natural gas

And must be treated as such....

Our society is deeply entrenched in oil and is a necessity (for now) to sustain a citizen and their family's life. How would you get to work? How would you get groceries? Most people cannot bike ten miles to go to work - hell even one mile is too far. And how could you bike to get food - how would you transport ten bags of groceries? (Biking is just one example - walking? running?)

Of course Kucinich is right on - a true Democrat's Democrat. We do have to Nationalize the oil industry. The oil companies could literally charge $10/gallon if they wanted to - and nobody will stop them. We still need to go to work. And oil companies do not have the right to break the financial backs of all Americans. Oil is a utility just like electricity.

One purpose of a government is to help society live and live healthy. And healthy means financially and environmentally. Oil and coal are killing the planet. Our leaders, which we have but a small handful, must take control of the oil companies, dictate higher fuel economy standards, develop electric hybrid cars, develop total electric cars, implement solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal as our primary energy sources, and in the very near future (less than five years) retire oil and gasoline.

So, do you all want a few hundred men and women to become gazillion-airs and kill off the planet, or do you want you and your children to live on?

[northzax]

133. so why do you live your life based on access to oil?

if you can't ride your bike to work (and I did, before it got stolen, now I walk) move to where you CAN get to work without using fossil fuels. Yes, it can happen, you might not be as comfortable, sure, but if it's really coming, change your life to accomodate it. Oil is not a utility, it is a commodity, just like oranges or soybeans.

[SnoopDog]

135. With that logic...

Then I suggest you remove all electricity, natural gas, and piped in water from your home and business. "Yes, it can happen, you might not be as comfortable....".

I was born unto a country that required the burning of oil to survive - I cannot help that. However, I realize, and many other people as well, that burning oil is killing our country and our planet. And there are alternatives. It is, as I stated, a benefit to only few hundred people who run the oil companies - who make billions and laugh at us while they are in their yacht in the South Pacific.

[northzax]

139. I too, was born into that country

and I have structured my life to use as little of that resource as I must. I also don't leave my lights on when I'm not around, don't use more water than I need, and keep the thermostat at a decent level. I don't refuse to use petroleum, I just use as little as I need to.

yeah, my apartment would be more comfortable if I kept the AC at 65 degrees. but hey, that would a: be expensive; and b: be remarkably selfish of me (since I can, in fact, pay the bill, if I want to)

my point is that you drive because you want to. because it makes your life more convenient, easier. imagine living in a world where you didn't need to drive every day, most of the world does it just fine. everything in the average American's life is structured around access to cheap petroleum to operate motor vehicles. imagine an alternative in which the price of gas doesn't affect you on a week to week basis (sure, I pay more for groceries and the like, but I had to check online to find the price of a gallon of gas, I haven't bought one since February) I'm not saying don't use petroleum, I'm just saying that if your life is structured around unlimited access to cheap petroleum, then you're in for a shock when that resource ceases to be cheap and plentiful.

[SnoopDog]

142. I think we are discussing different points....

I too attempt to use a minimum of natural resources. I recycle everything. I work from home so my gasoline requirement is minimal.

To counter your point - no I drive because I have to. People need to drive to work, stores, etc. This is the life you and I were forced to live in. Yes, you can take trains and busses but the infrastructure for a country-wide transportation is simply not there.

Back to my point - if the oil industry were nationalized - like the utility it is - then we can implement policies and procedures to eliminate the use of oil. Yes, it can be done and it must be done or our country and our planet will die. The pollution from oil and coal is changing our climate and humans may not live thru it. And even if you eliminate the global warming component - think about all the smog and health issues afflicting all humans. It is disgusting to know that so many of our children have asthma and other health problems because of airborne pollution from oil and coal.

WE need to completely eliminate the usage of gas and coal.

[northzax]

143. and what you aren't explaining

is why, if the government got billions of dollars a year in revenue from the petroleum industry, people would somehow be more likely to support alternative sources of energy?

the public transit systems don't exist because people don't demand they exist.

[SnoopDog]

145. Thats just it - a majority of people do support other energy sources.

It is because our voices are not heard. Our media is owned by the same people who want oil and coal.

I am not saying this is going to be easy - we have to kill an industry. And we need to. These people have it easy - get a natural resource, convert it, and sell it to millions of people who require it and make billions of dollars.

This really is life or death - country and planet-wide. We remain on oil and coal - we will kill the earth. Sometimes you just have to make that change to save your life.

I predict that once our government makes the move - the entire country and the world will not only support it but will transform a society so hell bent on death and pollution to one where a new era in human development will occur. On the same order as the stone age, dark ages, bronze age, and industrial age.

What will the new age be called?

[northzax]

146. no, a majority of people don't, actually

they theoretically support other energy, but they aren't willing to pay for it, or do anything to inconvenience themselves to achieve it.

I buy renewable electricity from my provider, it costs a bit more, but it's worth it to me. What percentage of your fuel usage comes from renewables? in almost every state, you can purchase renewables from your electric company, I assume you do? judging by the fact that well below 10% of DC residents participate in the renewables program PepCo offers, I'd say your 'majority' isn't that strong. I'm just saying, people won't do the easy stuff, let alone reconfigure their lives to eliminate the need for petroleum (heck, even you won't, and you obviously care about the problem.) Change starts at number one.

[SnoopDog]

147. Well, sir, I think we are completely off track from my original post...

I say that oil and therefore gas is a utility that should be nationalize or at least regulated as a utility such that oil companies cannot charge $3/gal and give CEO's $400 million in retirement. Then we can migrate away from oil as oil is killing our world.

And I do do my part - more than most people - maybe even you. I will be putting in solar energy at my house later this year or next.

We can continue arguing what people want and what people do - but I choose not to.

My point is that oil is a utility and needs to be treated as such so that we can stop using the stuff so we can survive and the hell with the few billionaires that are killing us all.

I have to go now...:dem:

[sarahlee]

126. See my post here about why the "radical" ideas are needed

A reply upthread that you might miss:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1302508#1307332