DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on April 05, 2010, 01:07:33 PM
-
As oil reaches $87 a barrel. The evil Bush & Cheney are jacking up oil prices again! What will poor Barry do to stop those nasty oil companies from making profits? I know, the government should seize oil companies and Socialize them.
Is it racist to think that most of the people on the Black Caucus including Obama are Marxist/Socialists? No I must be out of my mind.
Democrat Maxine Waters threatens socializing oil companies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKh7uqucArk#)
-
Nationalizing the oil companies, particularly the so-called "multi-nationals," is a great idea long overdue. I've advocated this for Canada for years.
The oil belongs to the people.
Actually, the way I understand mineral law in Canada and the UK is that all the mineral wealth in the country belongs to the Crown, and mining companies and oil companies are just given time-limited licences to extract, not deeds to the land and the minerals beneath. Probably the same in the U.S. except that the interests of the Crown were taken over by the People.
-
As I understand it, in the US, when you buy land in most states, you own the land and the mineral rights. The mineral rights can be sold separately. If the land belongs to the government, the government normally leases the right to extract ore of oil or whatever. There are always environmental regulations that should be followed, but they vary and are enforced differently.
In 1895, my great great grandfather wanted to build a new house in Texas. He refused to buy the limestone locally because the price was too high and so he bought the mineral rights to a farm in the next county. He built the house, which still is there today. After my father died, I got a call from a guy who manages mineral rights who sends me a check for $35 every two years to market them. It seems there is oil under this farm. The difficulty is that in the 1940's the river was dammed up and now the entire area is under about 40 feet of recreational lake. Apparently there is not enough oil to justify drilling, who knows? So far, there have been no takers. So drill, baby drill apparently is not all that appealing.
-
My guess is that, depending n the region of Texas, water is more dear than oil.
-
This particular water in a part of Texas where it rains about 30 in per year, and the main purpose of the water is boating and fishing. The oil leasing guy told me that it would be entirely safe to drill in the lake bed and pump out the oil without bothering the boaters or the fish, but that not many people own the required equipment.
In the 1950's, my Aunt Ann, a retired schoolteacher, drove me to the farm and showed me the place where they did some sort of oil exploration and told me that someday we might all be rich, and then swore me to secrecy. I did better than secrecy, I forgot the whole thing entirely until this guy called me up. I do not know who she wanted to conceal the information from. But I am sure they are all deceased by now.
=====================
Oil is not going to be nationalized of socialized. It might be a very good idea, but it won't happen.
None of my stock market advice has started to recommend ownership of funds invested in oil as of yet. Smallcap Value stock funds are on a roll at present. Recommendations are the ETF's DSV and RFG
-
Nationalizing the oil companies, particularly the so-called "multi-nationals," is a great idea long overdue. I've advocated this for Canada for years.
The oil belongs to the people.
Actually, the way I understand mineral law in Canada and the UK is that all the mineral wealth in the country belongs to the Crown, and mining companies and oil companies are just given time-limited licences to extract, not deeds to the land and the minerals beneath. Probably the same in the U.S. except that the interests of the Crown were taken over by the People.
That's stupid, considering 90% of the crude we get is from outside the nation's borders.
-
The difficulty is that in the 1940's the river was dammed up and now the entire area is under about 40 feet of recreational lake.
Your ancestor was Everrett Ulysses McGill (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190590/)?
-
<<That's stupid, considering 90% of the crude we get is from outside the nation's borders.>>
So if you allowed your own domestic sources to fall into the hands of the landowners, nothing could prevent them from selling out to foreign sources. Or leasing to them long-term. That would leave you 100% dependent on foreign crude instead of 90%. How stupid is that?
The English monarchs decided a long time ago that they would keep the mineral wealth of the nation in their hands and not trust it to individual Englishmen, who could easily, for the right price, allow it to fall into the hands of foreigners. Hence the centuries-old licensing system, imported into Canada when it was colonized by the English. Apparently, from what XO says, the U.S. has already departed from that system, so it's kind of academic now.
-
<<That's stupid, considering 90% of the crude we get is from outside the nation's borders.>>
So if you allowed your own domestic sources to fall into the hands of the landowners, nothing could prevent them from selling out to foreign sources. Or leasing to them long-term. That would leave you 100% dependent on foreign crude instead of 90%. How stupid is that?
The English monarchs decided a long time ago that they would keep the mineral wealth of the nation in their hands and not trust it to individual Englishmen, who could easily, for the right price, allow it to fall into the hands of foreigners. Hence the centuries-old licensing system, imported into Canada when it was colonized by the English. Apparently, from what XO says, the U.S. has already departed from that system, so it's kind of academic now.
Then have sales to foreign entities approved by the SEC or some other agency. Since the land is here if push came to shove how is some loser like Hugo going to come over here and take his oil if we say pound sand Hugo? You know like when Hugo stole all the foreign oil companies oil leases, rig & equipment in Venezuela. Same deal. Your argument is weak if not porous to the point it holds no water.
-
<<Then have sales to foreign entities approved by the SEC or some other agency.>>
That's total bullshit, especially coming from someone opposed to big government. Now the SEC would have to review each sale, checking to see if the buyer has foreign connections - - if a corporate buyer has foreign shareholders, how many, who's got the controlling interest, etc. etc. etc. This would create a huge bureaucracy, whereas a simple reservation of mineral rights to the executive branch of the government (in the U.S.A.) or the Crown (in Canada and the UK) means the mineral rights stay where they are supposed to be and no bureaucracy is needed to approve any change of ownership.
-
The oil belongs to the people.
So why would you want the government to take it from the people?
-
Your ancestor was Everrett Ulysses McGill?
No. Guess again. There are a LOT of recreational lakes in Texas
-
<<So why would you want the government to take it from the people?>>
Huh? I want the government to take the oil from the corporations for the people. Cancel the concessions and form a national petroleum company like China's or Venezuela's to pump out the oil so that all the profits goes straight to the government and are available for projects like free day care, better health care, better education, etc. Why should greedy capitalists profit from oil owned by the people when the people who really need the profits - - single mothers, children of the poor, toddlers in need of daycare and early childhood education, etc. - - go without?
-
Hey, lets follow the Brits.
Great Britain: gas is "120p a litre at some garages in recent days"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/oil-prices-up-as-motorists-face-record-petrol-charges-1936627.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/oil-prices-up-as-motorists-face-record-petrol-charges-1936627.html)
That's about $7.50 a gallon.
-
It's a few cents over a buck a litre here. At the Esso station. I don't know who owns Esso any more, but I know if that gas did not have to pay for its President and board of directors, its shareholders, its advertising agencies, its lawyers, its accountants, lobbyists, etc., all of its core work could be done by civil servants as in China or Venezuela or Iran or (before the invasion) Iraq, and there would suddenly be shitloads of money redirected into the national treasury, not just from Esso, but from Shell, and BP, and Sunoco and all the rest of them, making huge benefits available to the neediest Canadians, the single mums, the children of families living under the poverty line, the Indians and Eskimos, etc., etc., without raising our taxes one fucking cent. For as long as the oil lasts. Which would be a long, long, long time.
And the ONLY reason that doesn't happen is because the oil companies have very wisely taken the precaution of paying off our politicians.
-
Your ancestor was Everrett Ulysses McGill?
No. Guess again. There are a LOT of recreational lakes in Texas
Perhaps a sense of humor would have been apropos. Everrett Ulysses McGill was fictional.
-
Not only fictional, but that lake was in Mississippi. I did like the film. A real hoot. That KKK scene was particularly amazing.
I wonder what sort of man would have preferred a hair grease called "Fop" to one called "Dapper Dan"?
-
It started in Mississippi, but it's not confirmed that the entire movie was set in Mississippi. It would have been easy for their trip to take them to eastern Texas. After all, "Pappy" O'Daniel was a real person in Texas politics.
-
When the film came out, the director stated that it was a musical based on Homer's tale of Ulysses, set entirely in Mississippi. Of course, "Pass the Biscuits Pappy" O'Daniel was a Texas governor and radio personality, but the story is fictional. Now perhaps it was not all FILMED in Mississippi (perhaps none of it was), but all the place names given are in Mississippi.
-
<<So why would you want the government to take it from the people?>>
Huh? I want the government to take the oil from the corporations for the people.
The government is not the people.
The government is not more effective or effecient at running oil businesses than are corporations.
People who do not want to be involved in the oil business do not have to buy into the corporation , people who do want to be involved can buy shares , corporations are closer to the people than are governments.
Misbehaveing corporations are easyer to destroy than misbehaveing governments.
Governments are just as likely to do wrong things with the resultant money as are corporations , but a lot more likely to get away with the shinanigans.
When you have a government of the people , you can attack bad corporations with the government .
When you have eliminated the corporations ,you make the oil industry unanserable.
If you are about to sing the praises of Civil servants , please use restraint , remember I am one and I don't want you to injure my humility.
-
The government is not more effective or effecient at running oil businesses than are corporations.
The people of Norway disagree with you on this. Perhaps the problem is that Americans are not Norwegians.
People who do not want to be involved in the oil business do not have to buy into the corporation , people who do want to be involved can buy shares , corporations are closer to the people than are governments.
No, they are not.When there is an election in a corporation, it is like a Soviet election: approve our candidates or reject them: there are seldom two slates of candidates from which to choose.
Those holding an interest in the corporation through a pension fund or mutual fund have no vote: the funds vote for them, and therefore not necessarily in their interests. Of those remaining shareholders, typically 25% actually bother to send in a vote. Quite frequently, the board must hire telephone solicitors to call shareholders and request their approval, because turnout has been insufficient for the changes in then proposal to be made.
The results of corporate elections are like the results in Soviet elections: those who do vote, approve by huge margins. But, as I said, few vote at all.