House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: 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.

I know. I used them as an example because they recently went from being privately-owned to nationalized. Seemed like the only apt comparison to make.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

Ah, I see... I re-read the thread and article. Apparently McCain just wants the govt to pay for (and/or subsidize) them, not own them. IOW, fascism as opposed to evil socialism. Got it.

I'd like to point out, amidst all the election year frenzy, that nutty ideas are proposed in Congress every day and never acted upon.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

Ah, I see... I re-read the thread and article. Apparently McCain just wants the govt to pay for (and/or subsidize) them, not own them. IOW, fascism as opposed to evil socialism. Got it.

I'd like to point out, amidst all the election year frenzy, that nutty ideas are proposed in Congress every day and never acted upon.

Vic, shining the light of perspective and levity into our dungeon here at P&N :thumbsup:

 

[palehorse]

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?

In the case of the McCain's proposed nuclear plants, they would continue to be built and operated by the private industry, NOT the government -- Like our current nuclear plants.

The government would likely subsidize their construction, upkeep, and security costs (through tax incentives?); and they will certainly regulate their waste disposal. But, at the end of the day, Joe Foreman and Johnny Engineer will be employees of XYZ Corp, not the government.

Kinda like outsourcing...

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

Ah, I see... I re-read the thread and article. Apparently McCain just wants the govt to pay for (and/or subsidize) them, not own them. IOW, fascism as opposed to evil socialism. Got it.

I'd like to point out, amidst all the election year frenzy, that nutty ideas are proposed in Congress every day and never acted upon.

Well, if you want to use that logic, our entire energy grid is fascist.

 

[JS80]

It's amazing how dumb people are, with all the history and economic analysis out there how can you still consider nationalizing anything?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: JS80
It's amazing how dumb people are, with all the history and economic analysis out there how can you still consider nationalizing anything?

Yeah, our military is garbage, we should disband it completely and just hire blackwater when we need to fight a war.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: JS80
It's amazing how dumb people are, with all the history and economic analysis out there how can you still consider nationalizing anything?

Maybe because of the history and economic analysis of the public utilities market?

Do a comparison of the cost per consumer when it was government regulated to the hilt and now that it is for-profit privately owned.

I'll do the work for you

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: JS80
It's amazing how dumb people are, with all the history and economic analysis out there how can you still consider nationalizing anything?

Maybe because of the history and economic analysis of the public utilities market?

Do a comparison of the cost per consumer when it was government regulated to the hilt and now that it is for-profit privately owned.

I'll do the work for you

I'm very glad the Florida Power and Light is heavily regulated by the state. It has worked out very well for us.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JS80
It's amazing how dumb people are, with all the history and economic analysis out there how can you still consider nationalizing anything?

Yeah, our military is garbage, we should disband it completely and just hire blackwater when we need to fight a war.

 

[Socio]

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?

I would say bad because I am afraid if we get gas back down to $2.00 a gallon we will be reluctant once again to pursue any alternatives.

The ONLY reason there is not a solution to the energy problems the US and other countries face now is because we have not been forced into finding any, now we are which makes these high fuel prices a very good thing!

Weaning ourselves from oil will not only help the whole worlds environment immensely but it will have other affects just as important like draining the free flowing funds for terrorism, prevent countries from attaining nuclear weapons because they won?t be able to afford them, and put an end to anyone having the ability to put stranglehold on the free world?s market by manipulating oil.

Because of this I think we should ride it out and force alternative fuel changes instead.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Socio

I would say bad because I am afraid if we get gas back down to $2.00 a gallon we will be reluctant once again to pursue any alternatives.

The ONLY reason there is not a solution to the energy problems the US and other countries face now is because we have not been forced into finding any, now we are which makes these high fuel prices a very good thing!

Weaning ourselves from oil will not only help the whole words environment immensely but it will have other affects just as important like draining the free lowing funds for terrorism, prevent countries from attaining nuclear weapons because they won?t be able to afford them, and put an end to anyone having the ability to put stranglehold on the free world?s market by manipulating oil.

Because of this I think we should ride it out and force alternative fuel changes instead.

Very well said. I just wish that it wasn't our generation that has to suffer for those benefits.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 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.

Are you an idiot? What if it's two... what if it's THREE!?! This is in no way something that is ever going to get acted upon because it has pretty much zero support. Why don't you take 15 minutes and look up all the dumb shit that gets proposed by individual congressmen.

 

[EagleKeeper]

1) You get people of all stripes that have a knee jerk reaction to anything that gets stated.

2) Some of those reactions get compouinded by spreading FUD until there is no stopping it.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JS80
It's amazing how dumb people are, with all the history and economic analysis out there how can you still consider nationalizing anything?

Yeah, our military is garbage, we should disband it completely and just hire blackwater when we need to fight a war.

a lot of military development is outsourced to defense companies. but apples to oranges.

 

[SlickSnake]

Really, this news link says it all about nationalizing big oil and the effect it would have on U.S. consumers. And remember, this example is also in Mexico where stealing illegally from consumers is considered a way of life for shady corporations. Kind of like in the U.S. where it's completely legal to steal oil from broke U.S. consumers using free market capitalism and democracy.

San Diego drivers appreciate Mexico's cheap gas

$2.54 a gallon to nationalize big oil? Who the hell would be against that, but the stock holders at big oil with a bloody noose around Repulikrats necks in Iraq and Iran in the near future.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Government subsidy - who is paying the difference?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Government subsidy - who is paying the difference?

In that case, the taxpayer.

I think in something like a government-side Energy delivery agency, you would need to structure it to reward the employees and administrative staff for success, and on the flip side, have a swift kick out the door as a result of failure or incompetence.

Without the human element to screw it up, it's clearly logical that a non-profit and massive energy agency would be able to deliver cheaper energy than a corporation which is required to make as much money for the shareholders as possible.

Of course, in Government, there are many inefficiencies and failings, but it's not as one-sided as many make it out to believe. For the most part, our Military in particular performs with excellence with complete government management. Ditto with the Post Office, they kick the crap out of UPS and Fedex in my area as far as getting things to and from on time and without serious damage.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
The title is a bit misleading. However if they want to spend money, I'd also prefer they built nuclear powerplants.

Agreed and agreed.

Look at the source(s) though. Socio is a proven partisan hack, and Fox is utterly brainless (they were the ones who originated this incredibly misleading title).

Nuclear is FTW, and I think most (R)'s are on board with that, FWIW.

I wouldn't mind both, though. Hell let the US Army Engineers build/manage it, it'd give great training to our servicemen/women, and it would be a big boon to us in our ability to ride out unstable global markets by taking care of our own crap.

Good lord, ANYONE but the COE. They could screw up a wet dream.

I am actually dealing with the COE on a project as we speak. So far, my end of the project is going to cost us at least 5X what it should. I am still turning a profit off of the job but we damn near begged them to go with at least a dozen other options that would have been both cheaper and better/stronger with longer warranties. It is truly insane.

Screw the COE, get the boys at MIT to do it. I'd bet my life savings they come in under budget, ahead of schedule and a better end product.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Socio

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?

I would say bad because I am afraid if we get gas back down to $2.00 a gallon we will be reluctant once again to pursue any alternatives.

The ONLY reason there is not a solution to the energy problems the US and other countries face now is because we have not been forced into finding any, now we are which makes these high fuel prices a very good thing!

Weaning ourselves from oil will not only help the whole worlds environment immensely but it will have other affects just as important like draining the free flowing funds for terrorism, prevent countries from attaining nuclear weapons because they won?t be able to afford them, and put an end to anyone having the ability to put stranglehold on the free world?s market by manipulating oil.

Because of this I think we should ride it out and force alternative fuel changes instead.

:thumbsup:

 

[Engineer]

Sorry, DP.

 

[Fern]

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.

Sorry, I must strongly disagree.

It only makes sense if the governement should subsidize the cost of oil. If it's not profitable now, that means a goverment subsidy by taxpayers.

Why should all of us subsidize gas for those who use it? Doesn't that encourage them to use MORE? Shouldn't those who use less be rewarded, and not those who use more?

If it is profitable (or even if it isn't) you can NOT have the US government competing with for-profit companies. The US gov doesn't pay income taxes. Big competitive advantage. The US gov won't need to reward shareholders. Big competitive advantage. Won't need to pay for capital, or even seek it other than raising taxes. Again, a huge advantage.

Bad, terrible, horrible idea. I doubt it would pass muster with the SCOTUS, and God help us if it does.

You know, Coca-Cola and other comapnies have higher profit margins that the big oil companies. Nor our oil companies responsible for the price of oil. They simply have far too small of a global market share to do that.

Fern

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
BigOilCo can build new refineries around the world but they can't build one in the United States in 30 years ....

It would be the best $5 billion the Fed has ever spent.

Ummmmm......... would not the "conservatives" say that's because the "liberals" and "environmentalists" won't let them?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fern

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.

Sorry, I must strongly disagree.

It only makes sense if the governement should subsidize the cost of oil. If it's not profitable now, that means a goverment subsidy by taxpayers.

Why should all of us subsidize gas for those who use it? Doesn't that encourage them to use MORE? Shouldn't those who use less be rewarded, and not those who use more?

If it is profitable (or even if it isn't) you can NOT have the US government competing with for-profit companies. The US gov doesn't pay income taxes. Big competitive advantage. The US gov won't need to reward shareholders. Big competitive advantage. Won't need to pay for capital, or even seek it other than raising taxes. Again, a huge advantage.

Bad, terrible, horrible idea. I doubt it would pass muster with the SCOTUS, and God help us if it does.

You know, Coca-Cola and other comapnies have higher profit margins that the big oil companies. Nor our oil companies responsible for the price of oil. They simply have far too small of a global market share to do that.

Fern

If Refineries can't make any $$, then you have 2 options:

1) Subsidize them
2) some form of Public Ownership

Refineries don't Consume, they Produce/Supply.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sociopath

The Federal Goverment already has to much control, the last damn thing we need is them having the ability to control our oil supply!

How do you feel about them building Nuclear Reactors?

I have no problem with Nuclear Reactors being built because last I checked the Federal Government does not own them they only control the permits to build them; otherwise they are commercially owned and operated.

I believe these Dems see the huge profits the big oil companies are making and just want in on the action thus want to now take over ownership of refineries. I see this is a play for more power, and another way to squeeze more money out of Americans.

If taking ownership of refineries is an honest attempt to help Americans and the economy and done so using taxpayer?s money then it should be 100% non-profit service, the problem is it won?t be!

Not only that it will give the Federal Government to much power, open the door to corruption and manipulation on a scale never seen before and give them huge leverage over States, none of which is good at all.

It's too much power true, but unfortunately, that power now is in the hands of a few oil companies. I'd rather it be government run, where I have some say in the process, than the way it is now.