What would be the best way to reign in power of OIL companies?

[yurbud]

Poll question: What would be the best way to reign in power of OIL companies?

[napi21]

1. I'd like to see a lot of the hugh conglomerates broken up!

1. Radio, TV & Newspapers
2. Agriculture businesses
3. Oil Companies
4. Hospitals
5. Insurance Companies

[shugh514]

2. Change your lifestyle

We're going to be forced to when energy prices go skyhigh. Consume as little resources as possible now. Use renewable energy sources. Don't wait for the government to tell you to conserve, it's not going to happen. The administration/oil companies will continue to supress renewable sources until they have made every penny possible from the remaining oil in the ground.

[Vincardog]

3. Nationalize them use their money to pay for public financing of elections

[Extend a Hand]

4. eliminate corporate personhood

so that directors and shareholds could be held individually liable for the actions of the company. Right now corporations have the rights of a person but none of the responsibilites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[yurbud]

13. I would let them keep it if they were eligible for the death penalty...

[RB TexLa]

5. under this idea of nationalization

would those of us who have the oil under our land have it stolen from us as well?

[jobycom]

14. The problem with nationalization

is that control of the oil would be shifted from corporations out to rip us off to government entities out to rip us off. So your oil would still be stolen from you, gas prices would not go down, and worse, gas prices would probably go up because of mismanagement because oil would be handled the same way FEMA or Homeland Security is handled--by idiots with no experience who gave lots of money to the reigning administration.

[jobycom]

6. More aggressive graduated tax structure

Tax oil companies and all businesses and individuals more aggressively on the upper margins of their income. That way, as a company earns bigger profits, they owe more in taxes, and the profits become less profitable. The Republicans hate these types of taxes, claiming that they are simply passed on to the consumers, but usually corporations cap their own size, and allow spin-off corporations to help meet demand. In other words, as Exxon approached the point of lower returns, they would be rewarded for allowing some of their business to go to a smaller corporation. Investors in Exxon would be rewarded for investing in these new, smaller corporations, and these new corporations would be rewarded for lowering their prices, thus drawing business from the larger corporations. A real price competition could begin.

As it stands now, thanks to Reagan and his idiocy, Exxon is rewarded for growing larger, buying up or forcing out of business all smaller competitors, merging with the few large competitors that still exist, and manipulating prices through illegal collusion or through legal loopholes such as closing refineries to limit production.

The part of the whole "free market economy" the Republicans misunderstand is that it only works with a strong government to prevent cheating. They claim competition drives down prices, and demand creates competition--and both of those are true--but the ignore the economies of scale. At the level of capital required to start an oil company, there is no competition without government regulations forcing it, and with a product like gasoline, which is a necessity and not a "comodity" in the literal sense, people cannot simply walk away without using the product. They have to buy it. The only way to force competition is to control the size and, not to mention the collusion, of these corporations.

The most natural way to create competition is with an aggressive progressive tax structure. It would also require tighter oversight, so any of the ideas to elect people free of oil money are also good ones.

[Tactical Progressive]

30. Those are my principles as well

Along with charging them much, much higher royalties on gas, oil and mineral rights.

[Jara sang]

7. Nationalize

[FogerRox]

8. yes, Nationalize.

[BayCityProgressive]

12. I would say a mixture

I would break the companies up. I would place a windfall tax on them and use the revenue to invest in renewable energy. Also I would let local governments buy shares of the renewable energy companies and also the oil companies for a kind of public/private co-ownership. But that is just socialist old me!;-)

[ProgressivePatriot]

9. A combination of things should be done.

Nationalize, end susidies and strictly regulate them. Oh....and make them reimburse subsidies they now have under the occupied government.

[karnac]

10. make profit illegal

that is the only true way. or at least limit it to 5 or 10 percent. what is it anyway?

[hobbit709]

11. Get a rope

[jobycom]

15. Ah, finally, a wise answer!!

:rofl:

[Thickasabrick]

16. I didn't see this on the list.....buy Hugo's gas

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. Why? Did He Make Less Profit Then The Others? Were His Stations Cheaper?

Not the ones I saw.

[Thickasabrick]

19. The profits from his gas help finance programs for the poor...and

it's nationalized. I'd rather see it go to Venezuela than in the pockets of America's most greedy corporations.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. Me? I'd Rather See Gas Prices Not Be So High.

I hear all this hooplah about king chavez and his gas yet I'll be damned if I found a station that was selling it for less than the dreaded Exxon's were.

Wanna impress me? Sell your gas for cheaper Chavey boy. That's what I'm looking for. To not get raped by corporations every time I fill up.

[yurbud]

27. He would like oil prices to be lower and gives it to OUR poor cut rate

[yurbud]

26. damn, I should have thought of this.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Another Vote For Nationlizing Here.

[BayCityProgressive]

21. Here is my problem with "nationalization"

As a socialist I favor more decentralized public ownership. I think states, local governments, private citizens, and the fed should own some of these companies jointly. In too many countries, once a resource or service is nationalized the bureaucracy becomes corrupt rather quickly. This would also make our country look at self interests only. If politicians owned the oil companies from Washington, they would do whatever it took to win re-election. We would be invading countries like crazy for access to oil. So not much different from now. A mixed ownership, in my view, is preferable. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. I Can See Where You're Coming From.

Nationalization might be a good start, but you're right, it may need to be more than that to truly make the situation better.

[yurbud]

29. nationalize then to use Grover Norquist's analogy, make them so weak

you can drown them in the bathtub.

[Initech]

23. How about this one - tax the hell out of their obscene profits.

Something like for every $4 billion they make, they have to pay at least $1.25 billion of that in taxes. It'll help pay for that shitty war they helped sponsor.

[jobycom]

24. That's what I was getting at in Post #4

Although with too many words. You say it much simpler! :rofl:

[Turbineguy]

25. Well, considering

that oil was around $10 per barrel in 1999, it seems to be more of a political problem. The reason the oil companies are enjoying "obscene" profits is because the neocons got in power and created the geopolitical uncertainties that have run up the price of oil. Since the US uses about 1/4 of the oil production, the influence of US neocons on price is amplified. Nationalizing the oil in the US would not make much difference as it simply would be withheld from the market and made up for by imports.

Solutions?

1. Burn less oil (by whatever means possible, conservation, alternates, etc.) Price helps bring this about.

2. Get the neocons out of power.

On edit:

Recalling the oil shocks of the 70's (courtesy of US policy toward Israel) a lot of people seemed to think they were somehow victims of the oil companies. If you don't like the product or the people who supply it, don't buy it. Anyway, considering what people in the US spend on dope, that argument is a bit threadbare.

[yurbud]

31. alternatives for driving an internal combustion gasoline engine

aren't supported by a distribution infrastructure, so unless you are a tinkerer or have time to drive a couple of counties away to get you ethanol or biodiesel, you're screwed.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. Develop alternatives.

End the excessive dependency on oil. As long as the demand and the need is as great as it is, the people who control it are going to have too much power.