House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries

[Queasy]

If they want to better manage the flow of gas in the United States, they can start by getting rid of the dozens of different blends of gasoline and go down to only a couple. The current system artificially restricts supply and causes increased prices. Part of the reason why gas in California is always the most expensive.

After that, they can remove the ethanol mandate so that we aren't growing food for fuel instead of food to feed people.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I have no problem with the US Government nationalizing the US oil industry, EXCEPT that if profit is taken out of the picture, where's the incentive for growth?
It's far past time to take the bazillions of dollars away from the oil companies and either give it back to the American consumers, or stick it in the US treasury.

Why not nationalize Walmart next?
Or Microsoft?
Or big farm/food suppliers?

What makes oil any different than those companies?

Well, for one, the prices for their product have not skyrocketed over the past 12 months. I'm not saying I support this idea mind you. I'm really not sure where I stand on it to be honest. I just thought I would point out that there are some very big differences between Big Oil and the examples you provided.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Socio
They can't manage Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, our borders, or virtually anything else WTF makes them think they can manage the Oil market?

I know, they sure can't! The government fails at absolutely everything, the military is totally incompetent, the post office can't deliver letters, that damned park service keeps misplacing thousands of acres, it's just amazing!

for some reason I literally LOLed at the park service part.

 

[sandorski]

The Refineries have been complaining of not being able to make any Profit. Seems like Government entering to build new Refineries makes a lot of sense due to that.

 

[fskimospy]

To make this title accurate you could say House DEMOCRAT (singular) calls for nationalized refineries. I see nothing in that article that shows support from significant numbers of Democrats. If you want to play the game of 'someone in the House said something dumb', then by all means let's do so.

Not to interrupt the circle jerk or anything.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I have no problem with the US Government nationalizing the US oil industry, EXCEPT that if profit is taken out of the picture, where's the incentive for growth?
It's far past time to take the bazillions of dollars away from the oil companies and either give it back to the American consumers, or stick it in the US treasury.

Why not nationalize Walmart next?
Or Microsoft?
Or big farm/food suppliers?

What makes oil any different than those companies?

Well, for one, the prices for their product have not skyrocketed over the past 12 months. I'm not saying I support this idea mind you. I'm really not sure where I stand on it to be honest. I just thought I would point out that there are some very big differences between Big Oil and the examples you provided.

Yea... the government doesn't tell place severe limits on those companies by blocking their access to the resources they need.

Nor does the government tell them to release one type product in one part of the country, but a different one in a separate part of the country.

Part of the problem is to much government interference in the market.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Building our own is the only thing that makes sense. Everyone knows that we have a refinery bottleneck, and even if everything is humming along at 100%, it's still only barely enough to keep inventories from getting low. It's also notoriously sensitive to things like gulf storms, which wreak havoc with the whole situation.

If you're correct, and the plan here is only to take over the refineries from the oil companies, then it's useless and counterproductive. If the plan is to leave the oil companies alone per se, and to build new refineries that are federally managed, then that could be a real legitimate help, and would dramatically strengthen our ability to maintain stability and supply in difficult times.

Well perhaps they'd start by building new ones, and then eventually squeeze private industry out of any original plants that threaten our government's "control of the flow of oil."

Having both coexist wouldnt be very efficient for anyone involved...

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
To make this title accurate you could say House DEMOCRAT (singular) calls for nationalized refineries. I see nothing in that article that shows support from significant numbers of Democrats. If you want to play the game of 'someone in the House said something dumb', then by all means let's do so.

Not to interrupt the circle jerk or anything.

That was true when it was only one, but now we have a second house dem; not to interupt your koolaid drinking or anything.

 

[Queasy]

Oh, this is doubly rich because Dems blocked a proposal just a week ago that would, among other things, allow more refineries to be built.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Refineries have been complaining of not being able to make any Profit. Seems like Government entering to build new Refineries makes a lot of sense due to that.

Not really. The Government would come in and likely drive these other refineries out of business. Putting a great share of the refining capacity in the government's pocket.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I have no problem with the US Government nationalizing the US oil industry, EXCEPT that if profit is taken out of the picture, where's the incentive for growth?
It's far past time to take the bazillions of dollars away from the oil companies and either give it back to the American consumers, or stick it in the US treasury.

Why not nationalize Walmart next?
Or Microsoft?
Or big farm/food suppliers?

What makes oil any different than those companies?

Well, for one, the prices for their product have not skyrocketed over the past 12 months. I'm not saying I support this idea mind you. I'm really not sure where I stand on it to be honest. I just thought I would point out that there are some very big differences between Big Oil and the examples you provided.

Yea... the government doesn't tell place severe limits on those companies by blocking their access to the resources they need.

Nor does the government tell them to release one type product in one part of the country, but a different one in a separate part of the country.

Part of the problem is to much government interference in the market.

It's tough when the daily lives of people depend so much on the product though. Sometimes in order to not let things get out of hand the government needs to step in and regulate. An example would be power companies which are regulated at least partially by the government in every state to make sure that the prices don't get out of control. The tough question to ask is, "Where should we draw the line?" when it comes to making this decision. One wrong answer to that question is, "No where."

Again, I am not trying to argue for nationalizing this stuff. I'm just trying to point out that it might not be an ultimate evil and it isn't the same as the government nationalizing an industry whose products are not relied upon so much for the country to function such as what is being sold at Walmart.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Oh, this is doubly rich because Dems blocked a proposal just a week ago that would, among other things, allow more refineries to be built.

One hand does not know what the other is doing

Or

See what the opponent states and then state the opposite.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Refineries have been complaining of not being able to make any Profit. Seems like Government entering to build new Refineries makes a lot of sense due to that.

Not really. The Government would come in and likely drive these other refineries out of business. Putting a great share of the refining capacity in the government's pocket.

Refineries are already Losing money, they are already being driven out of business. If they are to be believed.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It is one House member (influential) that is making that statement.

Poiliticans word statements to be vague, when they want deniability.

Why is it that every MSM new source is reporting back to/crediting this to a Fox report.

It's more than on. Sheila Jackson Lee was the first to utter it a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Refineries have been complaining of not being able to make any Profit. Seems like Government entering to build new Refineries makes a lot of sense due to that.

Not really. The Government would come in and likely drive these other refineries out of business. Putting a great share of the refining capacity in the government's pocket.

Refineries are already Losing money, they are already being driven out of business. If they are to be believed.

But they are surviving by adjusting their output so that they can remain profitable. Bring the government in and they won't be able to compete at all and we will truly have nationalized refineries.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It's tough when the daily lives of people depend so much on the product though. Sometimes in order to not let things get out of hand the government needs to step in and regulate. An example would be power companies which are regulated at least partially by the government in every state to make sure that the prices don't get out of control. The tough question to ask is, "Where should we draw the line?" when it comes to making this decision. One wrong answer to that question is, "No where."

AFAIC, that line should be drawn well short of "ownership" and "complete control."

But you're right, some improved regulation may be required...

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Refineries have been complaining of not being able to make any Profit. Seems like Government entering to build new Refineries makes a lot of sense due to that.

Not really. The Government would come in and likely drive these other refineries out of business. Putting a great share of the refining capacity in the government's pocket.

Refineries are already Losing money, they are already being driven out of business. If they are to be believed.

But they are surviving by adjusting their output so that they can remain profitable. Bring the government in and they won't be able to compete at all and we will truly have nationalized refineries.

What you're suggesting is that prices are artificially high because of output manipulation. Not only that, but you suggest that the gov't refineries would be able to put out product that would be less expensive. Is it good for America, or bad for America, for fuel to be more affordable?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Xavier434
It's tough when the daily lives of people depend so much on the product though. Sometimes in order to not let things get out of hand the government needs to step in and regulate. An example would be power companies which are regulated at least partially by the government in every state to make sure that the prices don't get out of control. The tough question to ask is, "Where should we draw the line?" when it comes to making this decision. One wrong answer to that question is, "No where."

AFAIC, that line should be drawn well short of "ownership" and "complete control."

But you're right, some improved regulation may be required...

Ya, I don't think a complete take over is necessary. It will probably do more harm than good.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Queasy
...
But they are surviving by adjusting their output so that they can remain profitable. Bring the government in and they won't be able to compete at all and we will truly have nationalized refineries.

What you're suggesting is that prices are artificially high because of output manipulation. Not only that, but you suggest that the gov't refineries would be able to put out product that would be less expensive. Is it good for America, or bad for America, for fuel to be more affordable?

Given that refineries have to pay for their raw product, the only thing the goverment can do is either cut the quality or the profit on the output side to reduce cost.

They will not be able to get productivity savings and I would expect that personal costs will actually rise.

When has the government every been able to manage something directly and be efficient.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
What you're suggesting is that prices are artificially high because of output manipulation. Not only that, but you suggest that the gov't refineries would be able to put out product that would be less expensive. Is it good for America, or bad for America, for fuel to be more affordable?

Gas prices are high for a host of reasons. The price of a barrel of oil is the major cause. But so are other things like dozens of different blends, taxes, the ethanol mandate, etc. What the refiners are putting out is but one tertiary factor that is actually affected by other things like the different blends, taxes, and the ethanol mandate. All of which increase the costs of refining.

Ask if it is good for America or bad for America to those that oppose drilling for more oil inside the United States. The largest component in the price of gas is the oil. The price of oil comes down then refiners can afford to buy oil for refining.

And as CC mentions above, government reacts in different ways to the market than the private sector does. Example - Since nationalizing their oil, Venezuela has seen a drop both in the quantity and the quality of their oil.

 

[Pabster]

What a terrible idea.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Refineries have been complaining of not being able to make any Profit. Seems like Government entering to build new Refineries makes a lot of sense due to that.

Not really. The Government would come in and likely drive these other refineries out of business. Putting a great share of the refining capacity in the government's pocket.

Refineries are already Losing money, they are already being driven out of business. If they are to be believed.

But they are surviving by adjusting their output so that they can remain profitable. Bring the government in and they won't be able to compete at all and we will truly have nationalized refineries.

What you're suggesting is that prices are artificially high because of output manipulation. Not only that, but you suggest that the gov't refineries would be able to put out product that would be less expensive. Is it good for America, or bad for America, for fuel to be more affordable?

Gas prices are high for a host of reasons. The price of a barrel of oil is the major cause. But so are other things like dozens of different blends, taxes, the ethanol mandate, etc. What the refiners are putting out is but one tertiary factor that is actually affected by other things like the different blends, taxes, and the ethanol mandate. All of which increase the costs of refining.

Ask if it is good for America or bad for America to those that oppose drilling for more oil inside the United States. The largest component in the price of gas is the oil. The price of oil comes down then refiners can afford to buy oil for refining.

And as CC mentions above, government reacts in different ways to the market than the private sector does. Example - Since nationalizing their oil, Venezuela has seen a drop both in the quantity and the quality of their oil.

Other factors may have an affect on that outside the Nationalization.

 

[Vic]

Nationalization not found.

And didn't McCain just propose that govt should be build and operate 45 nuclear reactors to overwhelming partisan applause?
What's the difference here, according the OP's 'nationalization' argument?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Gas prices are high for a host of reasons. The price of a barrel of oil is the major cause. But so are other things like dozens of different blends, taxes, the ethanol mandate, etc. What the refiners are putting out is but one tertiary factor that is actually affected by other things like the different blends, taxes, and the ethanol mandate. All of which increase the costs of refining.

Ask if it is good for America or bad for America to those that oppose drilling for more oil inside the United States. The largest component in the price of gas is the oil. The price of oil comes down then refiners can afford to buy oil for refining.

And as CC mentions above, government reacts in different ways to the market than the private sector does. Example - Since nationalizing their oil, Venezuela has seen a drop both in the quantity and the quality of their oil.

I'm as anti-Chavez as they come, but your argument is a bit misleading. Almost all OPEC nations have nationalized oil industries, including Saudi Arabia's state-owned Aramco. IIRC, some 95% of the world's oil production is controlled by state-owned oil companies.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Vic
Nationalization not found.

And didn't McCain just propose that govt should be build and operate 45 nuclear reactors to overwhelming partisan applause?
What's the difference here, according the OP's 'nationalization' argument?

McCain did not propose that the government build and operate them.

McCain said he favors steps to reduce the time plant owners need to obtain the necessary permits. He suggested U.S. companies use common technology to shave the time in takes to bring a new nuclear facility on line. He also said a decision by President Carter three decades ago not to pursue fuel reprocessing technology should be reversed.

That's completely different.