Should the oil industry be nationalized?

[word]

The price of cable for what you get is a crime in itself, is it not ?

[DMX7]

Nor is that what was being proposed by me either. I was wanting to express my concern that if you start down that road how do you stop or slow down? The nationalizing of all industries was more of a hypothetical worse case scenario/what if down the road our descendents felt like doing... a situation that I think needs to be guarded against.

The proposition to nationalize the industry for national security reasons was GGA's while DMX7 thought it a good investment which could lead to help paying down debt (I assume the national one)

Good assumption, Socrates.

and make that industry safer. If successfull and the USA does nationalize the oil industry then you have just set a precedent by which the same argument could used against other industries. The next natural gas explosion will have the same argument leveled against it just like it was against the oil industry.

It's the slippery slope I was cautioning about.

You've gone completely overboard with the "slippery slope" argument. And where is the empirical evidence to support it? The fact is we don't live in a purely capitalist society anyway. We live in a hybrid system where elements of society have already been socialized based mostly on what we believe is in the best interest of the country. There is always an inherent risk/reward relationship there, but so is there for the capitalist elements. Kind of ironic though, that the capitalist banking (a.k.a. subprime mortgage) crisis nearly brought down our economy, and that our economy was essentially saved by temporarily socializing banks to save and stabilize them from their own irresponsibility.

But by your logic, we're probably never going to give any of the banks back to the private sector in our quest to nationalize everything on this extremely slippery slope...except that we already have.

[PublicOption]

HOLY !

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/19/sou...ex.html?hpt=T1

[PublicOption]

Defcon 1

[PublicOption]

[NFGIII]

You've gone completely overboard with the "slippery slope" argument. And where is the empirical evidence to support it? The fact is we don't live in a purely capitalist society anyway. We live in a hybrid system where elements of society have already been socialized based mostly on what we believe is in the best interest of the country. There is always an inherent risk/reward relationship there, but so is there for the capitalist elements. Kind of ironic though, that the capitalist banking (a.k.a. subprime mortgage) crisis nearly brought down our economy and was essentially saved by temporarily socializing banks to save and stabilize them from their own irresponsibility.

But by your logic, we're probably never going to give any of the banks back to the private sector in our quest to nationalize everything on this extremely slippery slope...except that we already have.

wouldn't say overboard just cautionary. And you are right about the fact that segments of society have been socialized though. All that I was implying is that once a precendent has been established it can be used in that manner. If the scenario had happened -nationalization of the oil industry - then if/when another disater happens - I picked the gas industry - there could be some politican making the same claim. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

And as emprical data goes does a cautionary note demand it? And your example of the banking situation is ironic also. If not for the Clinton administration the subprime mortgage crisis would have never happened. It wasn't an issue until they got involved quite heavy handed back in 1995. Their push to get these loans out to the econiomically disadvantaged with underlying threats of federal investigation and possible prosecution helped open the gates for the greedy and ruthless to take advantage of the situation that eventually lead us to the mess we saw.

The inherent problem I see is what balance does our society strike between capitalism and socialism. How can society allow the individual the freedom to take risks and be successful and at the same time protect the common good against abuses that can follow?

[boutons_deux]

"If not for the Clinton administration the subprime mortgage crisis would have never happened."

You ING Lie

[DMX7]

wouldn't say overboard just cautionary. And you are right about the fact that segments of society have been socialized though. All that I was implying is that once a precendent has been established it can be used in that manner. If the scenario had happened -nationalization of the oil industry - then if/when another disater happens - I picked the gas industry - there could be some politican making the same claim. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

Well... I only speak for myself, but I've never suggested that we should nationalize the oil industry because of this disaster, only that nationalizing oil might make drilling safer.

And as emprical data goes does a cautionary note demand it? And your example of the banking situation is ironic also. If not for the Clinton administration the subprime mortgage crisis would have never happened. It wasn't an issue until they got involved quite heavy handed back in 1995. Their push to get these loans out to the econiomically disadvantaged with underlying threats of federal investigation and possible prosecution helped open the gates for the greedy and ruthless to take advantage of the situation that eventually lead us to the mess we saw.

That the subprime mortgage crisis would have never happened if not for the Clinton Administration is a separate argument, and beside the point. It is clear that the investment banks, through financial instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps, took capitalistic risks that ultimately backfired and required nationalizing, both to save the themselves and to prevent the further collapse of our economy. That the capitalist banks and our economy were saved by socialism is the irony, not the interchangeable source of the bankers' risks.

The inherent problem I see is what balance does our society strike between capitalism and socialism. How can society allow the individual the freedom to take risks and be successful and at the same time protect the common good against abuses that can follow?

It's certainly not an exact science which can be said about most things. We must systematically identify where we have the most to gain based on our moral, economic, social, security, etc. interests; and then gravitate towards more or less socialism based on the risk/reward associated with those interests.

[George Gervin's Afro]

To both of you - this is the slippery slope that we really don't need to go down. Socialism, which is exactly what both of you are advocating, hasn't proven to be as effective as many think or believe. Great Britian tried it in the '70s and the economy suffered greatly which directly lead to Maraagret Thatcher's election in the '80s. A socialistic approach to managing national resources takes out the individual and makes the collective supreme. Capitalism for all its warts has created the highest standard of living in history. Even though there are problems regarding the disrtibution of wealth in that economic model it is far superior to any and all existing ones.

I understand your concerns but once you go down that road then future generations only will take it a step further. IMHO All I need to look at is the income tax. Passed in 1916 at 2% has lead us to what we have today. The politicans in 1917 who saw the returns of that law immediately moveds to have it increased again. People today take for granted the income tax structure we live under but government knows a good thing when it sees it. We used to be a nation based on gross income but now we look at the net. Taxes in ths country are almost 50% of the gross income most people make - that includes ferederal and state income taxes + sales taxes + SS and Medicar etaxes + registration/user fees on all levels. The old Raaagan saying " if it moves tax it" comes to mind. Not that this nation doesn't need to tax it's people in order to provide for the people but I think it has gone too far in it's role. Just MHO.


But if the government does nationalize it whats to prevent it from nationalizing any and all businesses that use natural resources as their product line? Of effect the nation on a wide scale? Especially if it effects national security? Noe that's a really good one since you could nationalize most anything and make an agruement that it effects national security.

So let's natialize the following:

Oil/Gas
Banks
Water
Lumber
Agriculture
Mining
Fushing
Automotive
Aerospace
Shipping
Freight transport
Railroads


Why not eventually natioalize all industries since if it effectst he poeple of the nation then the government has the right to oversee it and make it equitable.

electricity, water, and oil... the bloodline of our country. These industries should be nationalized.

[EmptyMan]

on what we believe is in the best interest of the country.

lol

[NFGIII]

Well... I only speak for myself, but I've never suggested that we should nationalize the oil industry because of this disaster, only that nationalizing oil might make drilling safer.

Fair enough. It seemed that way to me but nothing to quibble about. As for safety the government could always pass laws that would address that situation.

That the subprime mortgage crisis would have never happened if not for the Clinton Administration is a separate argument, and beside the point. It is clear that the investment banks, through financial instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps, took capitalistic risks that ultimately backfired and required nationalizing, both to save the themselves and to prevent the further collapse of our economy. That the capitalist banks and our economy were saved by socialism is the irony, not the interchangeable source of the bankers' risks.

Frankly though it would cause great hardship I felt that the government should let them fail. Do nothing, especially the automotive industry with the way those execs flew into DC on their private jets and all.

I'm beginning to come to a conclusion that most large businesses that fail can just look to the government and receive financial help to the tune of billions. If they screw things up then they will get bailed out. I may be wrong but if not this is a dangerous mindset to have operating at the top of these large businesses.

It's certainly not an exact science which can be said about most things. We must systematically identify where we have the most to gain based on our moral, economic, social, security, etc. interests; and then gravitate towards more or less socialism based on the risk/reward associated with those interests.

Agreed. Though I'm a capitalist I understand that there must be a balance between capitalism and socialism. The evoution of thought and society literally demands this. There are too many examples of the few screwing the many in order to further feather their beds. From robber barons to today's slick wall street bankers this isn't what the American dream is about or for that matter should any truely just society allow this to continue. Obviously many are simply out for themselves but this at ude must be addressed and curtailed.

I would like to see both financial and criminal punishment exacted first rather than the nationalization of industries. And not simply it being treated as white collar crime, either. Huge fines, shich should be in the range of most if not all of their ill gotten gains, and long sentences in the big house for those caught. Let them be in general population and see what if feels like to be screwed by the lower economic stratas.

[DMX7]

I'm beginning to come to a conclusion that most large businesses that fail can just look to the government and receive financial help to the tune of billions. If they screw things up then they will get bailed out. I may be wrong but if not this is a dangerous mindset to have operating at the top of these large businesses.

I actually give Hank Paulson, a free market conervative's conservative, credit for master minding the bailout. It took balls to swallow his pride and do the liberal thing. lol

That said, I would argue that the repealing of the Glass–Steagall Act had more to do with the banking crisis in general than subprime mortgage defaults. That's because GSA effectively separated investment and commercial banks, thereby allowing investment banks to fail without significantly interrupting the flow of credit to businesses and individuals. Today's major banks readily engage in both investment and commercial banking. This means that large banks can essentially take unlimited risks and count on their status as "too big to fail" knowing that the government will likely save them if they falter in order to prevent a freeze in the credit markets, not necessarily to save the jobs of the bankers. The problem is that there is no major repercussion for failed risk. If it wasn't the subprime mortgage defaults that triggered the latest banking crisis, it would have been something else that the banker's decided to try and greedily exploit, which is exactly why this whole fiasco is destined to happen again.

Unrepeal Glass-Steagall and I think we'll minimize at least one major cause of this latest disaster. That way higher risk investment banks can be allowed to fail independently, and the credit markets won't be held hostage from the threat of commercial banks failing alongside their investment bank counterpart.

[NFGIII]

I actually give Hank Paulson, a free market conervative's conservative, credit for master minding the bailout. It took balls to swallow his pride and do the liberal thing. lol

That said, I would argue that the repealing of the Glass–Steagall Act had more to do with the banking crisis in general than subprime mortgage defaults. That's because GSA effectively separated investment and commercial banks, thereby allowing investment banks to fail without significantly interrupting the flow of credit to businesses and individuals. Today's major banks readily engage in both investment and commercial banking. This means that large banks can essentially take unlimited risks and count on their status as "too big to fail" knowing that the government will likely save them if they falter in order to prevent a freeze in the credit markets, not necessarily to save the jobs of the bankers. The problem is that there is no major repercussion for failed risk. If it wasn't the subprime mortgage defaults that triggered the latest banking crisis, it would have been something else that the banker's decided to try and greedily exploit, which is exactly why this whole fiasco is destined to happen again.

Unrepeal Glass-Steagall and I think we'll minimize at least one major cause of this latest disaster. That way higher risk investment banks can be allowed to fail independently, and the credit markets won't be held hostage from the threat of commercial banks failing alongside their investment bank counterpart.

This reminds me of the '80s and the fiasco with the S&Ls. Upon their deregulation they were allowed to invest in anything that they wanted. Prior to that it was only mortgages, which they had become quite competent in. What a clusterf**k that insued. They had loans on islands for God's sake! In the middle of nowhere!

And you stated my major fear - the lack of repercussion for faiilure. This is just setting us up for another fall. Too many falls and there will come a time that we as a nation won't be able to get back up again. Though I was a stout deregulationist back in the '80s it has become very obvious to me that greed more so than not wiil trump common sense and an ethical approach to doing business.

Too many Bernie Ms and not enough Hersheys.

[DMX7]

This reminds me of the '80s and the fiasco with the S&Ls. Upon their deregulation they were allowed to invest in anything that they wanted. Prior to that it was only mortgages, which they had become quite competent in. What a clusterf**k that insued. They had loans on islands for God's sake! In the middle of nowhere!

And you stated my major fear - the lack of repercussion for faiilure. This is just setting us up for another fall. Too many falls and there will come a time that we as a nation won't be able to get back up again. Though I was a stout deregulationist back in the '80s it has become very obvious to me that greed more so than not wiil trump common sense and an ethical approach to doing business.

Too many Bernie Ms and not enough Hersheys.

Exactly. And remember, GSA was enacted after the great depression as a specific response to these kinds of banking disasters. It's not like we didn't know this was a possibility. But the banking lobbyists own Washington, so anti-regulation sentiment in the name of "free enterprise", whatever that means, will not be going away soon.

[NFGIII]

Exactly. And remember, GSA was enacted after the great depression as a specific response to these kinds of banking disasters. It's not like we didn't know this was a possibility. But the banking lobbyists own Washington, so anti-regulation sentiment in the name of "free enterprise", whatever that means, will not be going away soon.

"Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" (paraphrased)

So true but this lesson has more to do with greed than intelliegence. And the majority of the populace will live to suffer the consequences.

It simply amazes me that wilh so much money available to be had legally and ethically that most will go to great lengths to acquire as much as possibble even if it is means doing so either by illegal, borderline or unethical means. Damn, how many yachts, mansions, cars...etc... can aperson own until it gets redundent. And in doing so they can or will ultimately "screw the pooch" for those coming later by making it that much more difficult to acquire fortunes.

[Sec24Row7]

Good luck... the country can't afford to pay the mineral owners fair market value...

And what are you going to nationalize Exxon?

hah...

you want to see a government run an oil company without industry help? watch Iran when Ajmidenijhad puts his people over the top of the Iranian Oil industry workers...

Have fun with that...

dumb s.

[Phenomanul]

bad, bad, horrible, terrible idea....

[jacobdrj]

IMHO nationalization of the Oil industry is dumb. Regulation beats nationalization 99 times out of 100...

Oil is still relatively cheap. It is the least expensive aspect of owning a motor vehicle, behind insurance and maintenance.

IMHO, we should tax the out of gas. When gas was $4/gal the economy was running quite well, with demand for innovation at an all time high...

[The Reckoning]

uh wouldnt it increase our dependance on oil? im sure the govt would love lots of green incentives then.