lets keep this one relevant.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z4yM8qw-ayo

Quote :

"Quote : "1. Do you agree with Maxine Waters (D-CA) that the U.S. oil industry should be nationalized? Yes or no? Why? 2. Do you agree that the Congress should conduct these continual show trials of oil executives that amount to nothing other than political theater?"" 1. No i don't feel that the oil industry should be nationalized. its a notion that finds itself pleasant in theory, but is not entirely pragmatic. A stronger dollar would do more overall good and would drive down the cost oil as well. I feel this is an issue that should be further evaluated and addressed before nationalization is ever a concern. 2. I feel investigation is warranted, but I rather not have a horse and pony conducted as it is now. If the government is instituted to protect its citizens it is the duty of the government to investigate any organization that could be creating potential harm for its citizens. in this case the people by far and large feel the oil companies are to blame. While I do acknowledge that they are only making a 7% profit I still feel as if something isn't all together legit in relation to the current rise in prices. regardless of which i believe deep investigation into the accounting measures and politics that result in the current price of gas is necessary before we resort to drilling in other areas that would by large assist gas available to the world but only affect the overall gas available to the US on a small level, thus, only reducing the price by a minor amount. furthermore i feel that drilling would result in a gradual decline in price and that other alternatives may be reach before a substantial drop would be seen by the public."

Rat, I think rather than making poor attempts at being sardonic there would be greater accomplishment in gaining respect for your opinions and thoughts if you were to actually remain on topic and contribute intelligibly to the topic at hand.

5/23/2008 3:07:45 PM

^ so this thread is already about limiting free speech? wow.


to keep with the topic though: might as well want the oil nationalized if you want to control healthcare.

5/23/2008 3:09:46 PM

i got to tell ya

i'm not sure if she originally forgot to use the word nationalize

or if she realized that she was about to use one of the dirtiest words in american politics "socialize"

the democrats do want to socialize things, but I don't think they typically use that word

also, I believe the people in the background were laughing because they realize how silly the idea of nationalizing oil really is

i rewatched it

no she totally forgot the word nationalize

[Edited on May 23, 2008 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2008 3:10:14 PM

Despite the belief that it will somehow lead to Venezuela type failure of the economy, nationalization, when done correctly can do wonders in terms of providing wealth and returns to the country. For examples of countries maintaining wealth and generating more wealth through the nationalization of their oil market see: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico, Nigeria. I will acknowledge that some of those countries have ground to improve on, but their failures economically are not due to the nationalized oil industries.

5/23/2008 3:12:00 PM

it's not what we do

5/23/2008 3:12:24 PM

oil and health care aren't on the same playing field at all. you have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or as thomas jefferson originally wanted it life, liberty and land). health care could be fit within these while oil couldn't necessarily be so neatly fit. it is largely more rational to have a hand in health care, especially give the rising elderly population and the tendency to have longer life expectancies, than it is to have a hand in oil costs.

5/23/2008 3:14:38 PM

I can't really fault her for getting tongue-tied on the word or forgetting what the word is exactly. Think of the times in your lives when you've forgotten the simple word and had to come up with long elaborative explanations of the simple phrase only to remember it later.

5/23/2008 3:15:04 PM

I think if implemented correctly it could allow the government to sanely control oil a bit more so that we could wean ourselves off of oil as a whole, but the whole process would have to be highly controlled (including the move to other, hopefully electric, sources).


It's one of those pipedream things that will never come true.

5/23/2008 3:15:55 PM

THINK OF THE TIMES WHEN YOU WERE A SENATOR BERATING OIL EXECUTIVES

5/23/2008 3:17:08 PM

what liberal politician wouldn't want to control the oil? if i was a socialist pusher i would want it too. along with all the power you could get.

IRSeriousCat, if you can't stand any opposition by a random poster or 2 here and there on your road to complete control of this nation by the government, good luck containing your fear in the future. the internet will be the least of your worries.


for any of you conservatives thinking of posting here or anywhere, beware what you say against the socialism machine.

they want the oil. and they'll want you and your free speech next. it's all about power in the social machine.

5/23/2008 3:19:17 PM

I really loved the editorializing Fox News did in what was supposed to be a straight news story.

5/23/2008 3:19:37 PM

Quote :

"For examples of countries maintaining wealth and generating more wealth through the nationalization of their oil market see: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico, Nigeria. I will acknowledge that some of those countries have ground to improve on, but their failures economically are not due to the nationalized oil industries."

how exactly are you arguing that they're making lots of money by having nationalized oil markets and not just making lots of money by exporting lots of oil in general?

5/23/2008 3:19:51 PM

^ DING DING DING

5/23/2008 3:21:14 PM

Quote :

"how exactly are you arguing that they're making lots of money by having nationalized oil markets and not just making lots of money by exporting lots of oil in general?"

Prior to the nationalization of Mexico's oil market the money and wealth was not being sent to the country, but was being outsourced to the foreign agents who owned the oil fields. The nationalization of those industries in those countries prevented them from becoming banana republics, like Iran in the Shah's second reign as sovereign.

5/23/2008 3:22:46 PM

arent' we essentially outsourcing our oil production to saudi arabia already?

5/23/2008 3:24:04 PM

Quote :

"IRSeriousCat, if you can't stand any opposition by a random poster or 2 here and there on your road to complete control of this nation by the government, good luck containing your fear in the future. the internet will be the least of your worries. "

please point out, by quote, where i said i disapproved and couldn't stand your opposition to my stance on issues? moreover i do not wish to have complete control of the government and if you've actually sat and read the same percentage of my posts as i have yours, then you would have a firm grasp on that subject. i both admire and applaud discussion and effective debates over issues; however, when a response is barely more than coherent i do not have the same affinity for it.

that aside, I agree that nationalization would come with its benefits, but i believe that it would send out the wrong message, and more accurately show some of our hypocrisies. driving the price of oil down in unequivocally one of the most dire items that should be on our agenda as a nation, but nationalization should be a last resort.

[Edited on May 23, 2008 at 3:29 PM. Reason : topic]

5/23/2008 3:26:23 PM

oh now he's calling me a 5th grader. i applaud your efforts at trolling. you are pretty much the summary of the democratic party.

personal attacks on others + distorting the facts = ridding yourself of all hypocricy to be the lesser of the evils


good solution. please don't apply that to oil when you get control of it.

[Edited on May 23, 2008 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2008 3:30:35 PM

the rule of thumb is that you can act like a cocksucker around here--it just has to be with substance. in other words, you can be a real prick with how you argue your point and convey why the other guy is a retard, but you can't just call him a retard.

5/23/2008 3:50:26 PM

Had anyone been able to find the video of this hearing? I listened to the Senate hearing yesterday on c-span.org but for the life of me I cannot find the House hearing; has it not aired yet?

5/23/2008 3:57:32 PM

I don't think the house has held hearings on it.

5/23/2008 4:05:06 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_nxlW-MYQx0&feature=related

5/23/2008 4:16:16 PM

Quote :

"it's not what we do"

That isn't exactly true. The Tennessee Valley Authority was the nationalization of the Tennessee Electric Power Company.

5/23/2008 4:27:01 PM

Quote :

"you have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or as thomas jefferson originally wanted it life, liberty and land)"

Didn't Thomas Jefferson steal this quote from Common Sense or the Magna Carta or something and this wording was actually the one he wanted?

5/23/2008 4:49:42 PM

yeh nutsmacker, and the TVA was created after the stock market was gaining regularly and over 12,000 points.

5/23/2008 4:51:33 PM

What does that matter?

p.s. the TVA was created in 1939.

5/23/2008 5:13:52 PM

well, easy: the gov't -had- to step in, because private business wasn't doing so well, so it stepped in momentarily and got things going.

there was a massive depression to get out of.

5/23/2008 5:19:46 PM

Quote :

"For examples of countries maintaining wealth and generating more wealth through the nationalization of their oil market see: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico, Nigeria."

russia?

middle class in russia went from 8 million to 55 million in like 6 years

5/23/2008 5:31:29 PM

^^the TVA is still nationalized numbnuts.

5/23/2008 5:32:11 PM

^^yeh, let's copy russia. they do things right.

^



oh look he called me numbnuts!

[Edited on May 23, 2008 at 5:35 PM. Reason : LONG LIVE THE TVA!!]

5/23/2008 5:32:28 PM

honestly i actually do think russia does things right

5/23/2008 5:35:08 PM

^^Are you seriously using the amount of money requested by the organization as evidence that it isn't nationalized? I guess the Postal System isn't nationalized either.

5/23/2008 5:39:56 PM

one could assume by the amount of money that the government throws at it how successful it has become.

go have your little liberal party and go celebrate the nationalization of oil.

5/23/2008 5:41:33 PM

So you are saying that nationalization works?

5/23/2008 5:48:30 PM

is that a rhetorical question or if i post "it does if its done right" are you gonna yell at me?

5/23/2008 5:52:35 PM

It's a rhetorical question.

5/23/2008 5:53:48 PM

Nationalization is usually disasterous for complex, highly technical industries like oil discovery and extraction. Since nationalizing the industry, countries like Venezuela and Russia have seen gross inefficiency and large declines in productivity. Other countries with nationalized oil industries such as Saudi Arabia and Nigeria frequently appeal to US oil companies to participate in joint ventures, since their state-run outfits are lacking.

5/23/2008 6:53:59 PM

Quote :

"1. Do you agree with Maxine Waters (D-CA) that the U.S. oil industry should be nationalized? "

I can't imagine a scenerio where the gov't takes over the oil industry--forces prices lower and doesn't create massive shortages without widespread rationing.

Quote :

"Do you agree that the Congress should conduct these continual show trials"

They have to keep doing them. It's like the little kid who breaks a lamp-and points a finger of blame at his sister.

5/23/2008 11:23:15 PM

Quote :

"or if i post "it does if its done right""

Well, are you saying nationalization works? The real question is what respect it might 'work'. If the goal is to shift a massive amount of wealth from private investors to the government then you are damned right that it works. If the goal is to supply as much product to consumers as possible then you are damned wrong.

5/24/2008 8:58:50 AM

The belief that a nationalized oil industry would be a better option would have to be based on the premise that the government would be a more efficient supplier of oil than current, private suppliers.

For those of you making this suggestion, please explain how the government would be more efficient?

The price of oil is set in the global marketplace, thus the government could do little to effect the price of crude outside increasing our own production of oil. To my knowledge, there is no evidence suggestions a state-controlled oil industry would produce more oil than a privatized industry. On the contrary, Brazil has seen sizable increases in production since moving towards privatization.

[Edited on May 24, 2008 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 24, 2008 at 1:23 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2008 1:19:21 PM

sounds like another step closer to oil wars.

Instead of nationalizing oil, how about you build an infrastructure to support electric cars and open up the market to small businesses?

5/24/2008 5:32:26 PM

Just ran across this article, which does a good job outlining this political nonsense.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/78606-america-s-energy-policy-coming-to-terms-with-reality?source=side_bar_editors_picks

Quote :

" # On the one hand, some politicians are calling for lower gasoline prices. Meanwhile, others are complaining that America's "addiction" to foreign oil only seems to go up? News flash: the two are connected. Lower prices induce higher consumption, which necessarily leads to higher imports in a country with falling oil production. # Despite calls for raising supply, attempts at bringing new energy capacity on line are often attacked. A recent example is Delaware's successful effort at blocking BP's (BP) plan for building a new liquefied natural gas plant. The Supreme Court decision on New Jersey v. Delaware on March 31, 2008 comes at a time when politicians are complaining that energy companies aren't doing enough to increase supply. # Politicians charge that oil company profits are too high, at least as defined in absolute terms. But in relative terms, the profits are more or less middling. As CNNMoney.com recently pointed out, citing data from Thomson Baseline, the average net profit for the S&P Energy sector is 9.7%, slightly higher than the 8.5% for publicly traded companies generally, as per the S&P 500. In comparison, Microsoft's profit margins are a dizzying 28%, according to Yahoo Finance. "

5/25/2008 9:01:19 AM

seems like if the us exclusively bought out one country it would be more lucrative for these countries just open up their oil fields to the free market

5/27/2008 5:06:20 AM

don't worry. you can't see why it would be OK to socialize the oil industry today. That's fine. 50 years ago, no one thought it would be right to socialize the health care industry either.

give the government enough time to fuck something up, and eventually you will hear calls for nationalizing it.

5/27/2008 7:58:29 PM

You have no concept of History. 50 years ago there was a huge socialization of healthcare movement in this country. President Truman called for it whilst President.

You right to use the historical analogy card is hereby revoked.

5/27/2008 8:11:21 PM

Quote :

"President Truman called for it whilst President."

and he got his wish.
















not!!!111

5/27/2008 8:12:09 PM

for various reasons. But the pro universal health care crowd was quite large.

5/27/2008 8:14:00 PM

40 or 50 people seems large when there's only a handful of socialist radicals like yourself

5/27/2008 8:16:36 PM

the point still stands. at one point, the notion of nationalized health care was thought absurd. After letting the gov't fuck it up slowly over time, we now hear the siren calls for nationalizing it.

5/27/2008 8:23:51 PM

no, not at all. There was a large push for socialized healthcare. The AMA was successful in killing it.

5/27/2008 8:24:50 PM

you know damned well what I mean, though, so quit being a date-nazi on the matter. pretend I said 100 years instead of 50, ok?

5/27/2008 8:35:47 PM