Dems have raised gas prices $2 per gallon in seventeen months and the price of everything else with it. What is the top line they are shooting for? $10 per gallon by Jan?
we need to drill, all the idiots out there think that bush controls all oil in thenation, hell the world. if there was oil under the leased land we would have found it and drilled. so much for all of the election year promises that the dems promised to take the house. anyone with half a brain knows how oil is priced, and to think we let these morons who think this way have children.
Dave Noble
17 years ago
Scarpiron,
Please explain how dems have raised the price of oil.
“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices” – Nancy Pelosi (April 24, 2006)
The Dems either:
A) didn’t really have a “plan” that would work, if their “plan” existed at all,
B) didn’t implement the “plan” or,
C) implemented the “plan” and it failed miserably.
You get to choose which one you think it is.
They did try to pass a cap and trade bill which official estimates say will raise gas prices by $1.50 per gallon.
I’m not sure this bunch is smart enough to know up from down.
***
Dave,
Your query was not directed at me, but I will take the liberty of answering it.
The Dems have helped to raise the price of oil by continuing to stand in the way of additional production, thus limiting supply.
Dave Noble
17 years ago
Fine, Aye Chi, that’s an arguable position, but Scrapiron says the dems affirmatively raised the price of oil. That ignores the realities of the world economy, over which no one in the United States on either side of the aisle has control.
BTW, I am still having computer problems despite everyone’s tech assistance. I was unable to respond on what had become a global warming thread. Was that really your response on the other oil drilling thread? As soon as I find a fix or a workaround I will respond on that thread.
By continuing to stand in the way of an increased supply stream the Dems (and those who vote with them) are helping to increase the price of oil. Even when you consider the remainder of the big picture supply limitations are one of the big roots of the issue.
I cannot offer any computer advice above and beyond what you have already been offered.
I will suggest that the best thing you could ever do for yourself would be to download Firefox and get off of IE.
Dave Noble: Please check the links in the post above which compares the amount of offshore acreage available for exploration to the production of U.S. crude oil.
Here’s the chart in smaller form:
The arrow points to where the ban on offshore drilling was put in place. Larger image here.Democrats in Congress have done everything they could to choke off U.S. energy production.
jainphx
17 years ago
They raised the price of oil simply by doing exactly nothing. They do nothing and hinder those who want to do something. They tell us we can’t drill our way out, hell children stomp there feet and hold their breath to get what they want also. Stop with the lies, we have done it their way for way too long. Drill now, drill everywhere, build refineries, Nuclear plants, clean coal. This would also make JOBS and create wealth for our people and the Nation in general. I know the Caribu will be mad. STFU already people over animals that will survive.
Buzz
17 years ago
I know the Caribu will be mad
No they won’t. Caribou love the pipelines. It gives them warm places to mate.
Buzz: Here’s the photo from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields:
And with the newer technology, the footprint of oil production infrastructure would be even less intrusive in ANWR.
There is absolutely NO sound environmental reason not to drill EVERYWHERE.
doug
17 years ago
(AFP) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday the US government was not involved in Iraq’s no-bid oil contracts that could see four major western oil firms start their first commercial work there since the war began five years ago.
“The United States government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraq oil contracts. It’s a private sector matter,” Rice said in an interview on Fox news network.
But she did stress that the likely awarding of contracts “demonstrates that it’s starting to get interesting in Iraq and recognizes the potential for Iraq to become an even more major oil supplier.”
Sure. I believe her. We’re a passive people, not particularly interested in aggressively shaping Iraq’s energy designs –even during record oil prices– that will hinge on US affairs in Iraq and oil prices abroad for years to come, especially when billions are involved.
Any proof to the contrary or is your is that your partisan conjecture showing?
Scott Malensek
17 years ago
$4 a gal=the price of food going up, the price of goods going up, the effect of paychecks going down, and the effect of taxes going down.
Can I get a NO BLOOD FOR OIL? Anyone? Anyone?
Dude, where’s my oil? I blame Bush. I mean, he told us that the US needed to invade Iraq to get its oil. Where is it? Must be with those WMD’s that the Democrats told us Saddam had before the war, right?
Peters expressed concern that the cutbacks have resulted in the collection of fewer taxes on gasoline. Such taxes are funneled to the federal Highway Trust Fund, which gets 18.4 cents per gallon from gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon from diesel fuel.
Dave Noble, we can’t have you cyber silenced, guy. If you can’t view all the thread comments, you can switch to the WordPress classic or default view to respond. My problem for that was cured when I updated to IE7.
If you switch to one of those views to respond, but then want to return to the flashy view for the bells and whistles (recent comments, etc), you either find the selection between the three (usuallyin the frames on the right). Or do a clean out of your cookes under Internet Options, and refresh the screen.
And if this has already been pointed out to you in other threads that I’m not aware of, forgive the repeated info, please.
When you “break it, you own it;” it’s just that owning it is confined only to two groups:
Big oil companies flowing big campaign oil dollars into Republican coffers …at the rate of almost three to one over donations to Dems, a ratio still repeating itself in the McCain/Obama race.
““The United States government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraq oil contracts.”–Rice
Buzz
17 years ago
Big oil companies flowing big campaign oil dollars into Republican coffers …at the rate of almost three to one over donations to Dems, a ratio still repeating itself in the McCain/Obama race.
As opposed to pretty much every union organization, Hollywood, and the MSM, where a ratio of 3 to 1 for Dems over Republicans would be an improvement?
But you of course believe that the Bush Administration has their hand in the cookie jar in the dealings between privately owned businesses and a foreign nation that needs assistance quickly in their lifeblood industry.
If only the Democrats idea of nationalizing the oil industry would go through. That would certainly keep the government out of awarding business contracts. And if you want to know how good the government is at running businesses just look into their time running the brothel in Nevada. They couldn’t even make money selling sex.
Scott Malensek
17 years ago
“organized labor” floods Dem candidates w moola. Who floods organized labor?
Have some fun, go to the Federal Election Commission website, look up a Dem, and see what groups paid em. It’s sad. Ohhhhhh, but oil companies are eeeeeeeevil.
If only the Democrats idea of nationalizing the oil industry would go through.
They cannot make money running a restaurant either.
DW 5000
17 years ago
There’s obviously controversy surrounding oil companies. Let’s take them out of the equation. If the issue is getting the oil out of the ground, maybe a not-for-profit government-run operation would be the best choice for getting the job done. Oil drilling by the people, for the people.
The gas produced would be marginally cheaper because the government outfit would not be shooting for the record profits we’ve all heard about the oil conglomerates getting over the past few years.
Sounds oh so good in theory, DW. As a matter of fact, I’m on a PUD for my electricity, and it’s among the most inexpensive in the nation. Then again, that’s a small peanuts operation (probably under 20k households), and not a national entity. Socialism is always more effective in intimate family/community settings.
So perhaps the best example of a nationalized energy plan (oil companies as well as utilities) is Chavez and Venezuela. And that’s an oft tried experiment that isn’t going so well. While they’ve always had a high poverty rate, the equalization has merely brought more people down to almost poverty level, and raised only a few. The wealthiest are, of course, Chavez and his thug buddies who believe that the communist manifesto only applies to the populus, and not to their personal finances. (Note: linked to my own posts to avail you of the multiple source articles I used)
Lest ye think we might be a different critter, a President Obama’s suggested policies are also socialistic in nature. Revenue income from a nationalized oil company not only contributes to a gas guzzling mentality, would a POTUS then be inclined to drop that govt cash into a welfare state? And when most of the nation exists on govt subsidies, and oil revenue output starts declining for lack of private production investment (again, as is happening in Venezuela), where’s the cash to support the nation’s citizenry?
So I must disagree on an economic level. While the failures of a socialist system are not apparent at the outset, history has proven it time and time again to be a losing proposition in the long run. By that time, reversal is a painful, if not impossible, endeavor (ala Russia) Prices and quality are always superior with private enterprise competition than monopoly… govt or otherwise. Even price caps (ala Carter) were devastating for the nation.
I can’t blame the oil companies. They are the primary driving force to this nation’s rise to superpower, our superior technological advances (oil’s used in plastics, PC boards, medical… tons of places besides energy), and our quality of life. We owe much to the “big oil” evil industry. Yet as our demand for more benefits increase, they have faced opposition for expansion, exploration and development by prohibitive legislation. We are here by our Congressional failings, beholding to the environmental lobby … no refineries, no domestic oil production by private firms. It cannot be any more simple than more supply (including refining) = lower prices.
Lastly, oil companies are in the business of energy. If they are believers in peak oil (and they cannot afford to ignore that possibility), they too are looking to utilize what not so windfall profits they reap to fuel alternatives R & D… a very expensive proposition. It’s what also holds back the more profitable industry, prescription drugs, from making the gains they could. The R&D and long approval time kills the end profit structure. So they do not embark on the path to fruition.
.
DW 5000
17 years ago
You want the gov’t, the same people who cannot run the Senate restaurant without a loss, to run an oil business?
I thought that the issue was getting the oil out of the ground so we could use it and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The oil companies can continue to do what they do around the world and in whatever domestic deposits they’re currently drilling. We’ll take their taxes, they’ll continue to make money. We’ll get slightly cheaper oil because we’re cutting out the middle man.
Obviously, if we drilled in ANWR, we’d need to keep whatever we get off the world oil market. Selling off our domestically-produced oil would not go very far toward reducing our foreign dependency.
Do you know what the profit percentage is for an oil company?
No I don’t. It doesn’t matter. “Record profits” are record profits. If they don’t like their margin, they can get into some other line of work.
DW 5000
17 years ago
Mata Harley:
Nothing credible I’ve seen suggests that drilling the oil in ANWR would be a long-term proposition.
DW, 4-8% of a larger number is always a “record”. But on a P&L statement, 4-8% is still 4-8%. Most companies will not survive at that rate. Rule of thumb is more like 30%.
So hardly “windfall”. As the profit structure rises, so does the cost of doing business. It’s a number relative to the overall increase on both debt and income.
ADDED: INRE ANWR, it is not the only location, nor should it be. However over 9-12 bil barrels is nothing to snooze at. It would help Alaska’s economy.. who is for it, BTW. And, as I said, it should not be the only location. Relieving max output demands because of multiple sources elongates the term of operation.
DW said: “I thought that the issue was getting the oil out of the ground so we could use it and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
Yes, and anyone who thinks that big government can do that more effectively and efficiently at a lower cost might be interested in some stock for a buggy whip corporation I am selling.
Why is it that the libs first answer to every problem is more and larger government and an attack on private enterprise?
I’ve worked in the heart of big government and I can tell you that if it can’t even manage a restaurant, I don’t want it determining how, when and at what cost I get gas.
And if you think oil companies make too much money maybe you would also like to nationalize these guys:
Buzz
17 years ago
maybe a not-for-profit government-run operation would be the best choice for getting the job done. Oil drilling by the people, for the people.
You mean like the rest of the world which is almost all government run oil companies, typically larger than any of our private companies.
The gas produced would be marginally cheaper because the government outfit would not be shooting for the record profits we’ve all heard about the oil conglomerates getting over the past few years.
Yeah because the government never tries to make money. That’s why we never pay them anything. Come on use your brain. The only reason the government doesn’t shoot for record profits is because they have no clue how to spend less than they take in. Any money that would qualify as profit to a private company would be wasted like a baby eating spaghetti by the government.
Obviously, if we drilled in ANWR, we’d need to keep whatever we get off the world oil market. Selling off our domestically-produced oil would not go very far toward reducing our foreign dependency.
You really don’t have a concept of supply and demand do you.
I hate to be crass, but you really don’t have a clue do you?
In order to have an intelligent conversation here you’re going to need to have some sort of grasp on at least the basic facts and a willingness to learn and fill in the blanks as you go along.
Saying that a key factor of the discussion “doesn’t matter” does not foment progress. Furthermore, if it doesn’t matter as you say, then why are you complaining and why are we even discussing it?
The answer to the profit percentage question is that it varies from 4% to 8%.
“Record profits” as reported in the press means record dollars, not record percentages.
Let’s say you sold 100 mangoes in June @ $1.00ea. Then, in July you sold 125 @ $1.00ea. In each month you made 5% profit. July would be a “record profit” month even though your selling price and percentage stayed the same. Only your volume (demand) increased.
Tell me, if you will, what makes 4-8% excessive? (This is an opinion so there is no research necessary here.)
What percentage would be acceptable in your eyes? (Same as above, this is your opinion.)
If they don’t like their margin, they can get into some other line of work.
The oil companies like their profits just fine. They’re not the ones complaining.
Maybe you, and those like you, should get out of their business.
BTW, Mike’sA… great graphic for visual impact. I’ve see the line up of the highest profit industries in text, but have had a hard time finding the same documentation when looking for the link. That’ll teach me not to archive something… for a change!
I knew pharmaceuticals was #1. Forgot banks were #2.
Which, of course, makes it more than interesting for Obama, whining about “big, bad oil” money and the GOP. Yet the PACs that launched his Prez campaign? (and those “private funds” he’ll be depending on now that he’s abandoned his “principles” for the general…) Primarily banking… the #2 big money industry and lobbyists.
But of course, that’s probably an “off limits” subject like his pastors, his business associates, his middle name, his ears, his wife, etc etc.
MataH: That link between Obama’s fundraising and big money interests would be especially timely to post on considering his decision to reject public financing. I’m reading on the subject now, but feel free to post on it before I do. I was more interested in the hypocrisy of Obama claiming to be such a supporter of public financing but then dumping it when he sensed a political advantage.
P.S. I like the London Times headline: “Barack Obama accused of ‘betrayal’ for spurning public cash”
DW 5000
17 years ago
Mike’s America:
And if you think oil companies make too much money maybe you would also like to nationalize these guys:
I didn’t know we were in a telecomm crisis. Or a food and beverage crisis. And I’m not talking about totally nationalizing the industry. Before you accuse me of saying something that I didn’t say, read my post.
Hmmmm… so what you are saying DW is that anytime we have a crisis (or Dems can manufacture one) it would be ok to nationalize industries and seize the private property of individuals?
Well, let’s look at the chart again:
The top of that list is the pharmaceutical industry. Aren’t we also in a health care crisis? Don’t drugs cost too much? Shouldn’t the government seize that private property too?
And what about 2nd and 3rd on the list: banks and diversified financial institutions. Aren’t we suffering from a mortgage crisis and didn’t Bear Stearns financial almost go under? Shouldn’t we seize all that private property too?
Again, you the first thing you people think of to address a problem is to create a BIGGER problem by getting big government involved.
After working for government for a number of years I can tell you from personal experience that whatever government touches, it screws up.
DW 5000
17 years ago
The answer to the profit percentage question is that it varies from 4% to 8%.
“Record profits” as reported in the press means record dollars, not record percentages.
Oh. Which would you rather have–4% of one hundred dollars, or 4% of, say, a trillion dollars? By your reasoning, it wouldn’t matter, because 4% is such a teeny tiny number.
Tell me, if you will, what makes 4-8% excessive? (This is an opinion so there is no research necessary here.)
What percentage would be acceptable in your eyes? (Same as above, this is your opinion.)
Actually, I never said that 4-8% was excessive. In fact, I said that the oil companies should go ahead with what they’ve been doing that has yielded their apparently minuscule profits.
What I wrote was that if we’re in a genuine oil crisis that requires rescinding the drilling ban in various places around the country, and if this is a matter of national survival, why should any of the dollars go to a private corporation? How about a tradeoff where Lefties say, “go ahead and drill in these previously out-of-bounds areas, but, since this is an emergency, the money shouldn’t be going to a for-profit outfit?”
DW 5000
17 years ago
Hmmmm… so what you are saying DW is that anytime we have a crisis (or Dems can manufacture one) it would be ok to nationalize industries and seize the private property of individuals?
Wow. Are you being deliberately obtuse? “Seize the private property of individuals?” I challenge you to find a quote where I said we should do that.
DW 5000
17 years ago
Buzz:
You really don’t have a concept of supply and demand do you.
Yeah, I get it just fine. But isn’t the idea that we’re in a crisis? Don’t we have to rescind the ban on drilling in these places because we’re having some kind of emergency? If the only way we’re going to survive is to get that formerly off-limits oil out of the ground, why on earth would we sell it abroad? Where do supply/demand and profit/loss work into the equation? We need the oil, right? Isn’t the idea that we use it once it has been taken out of the ground?
You keep going around in circles comrade DW… I’ve decided to award you the order of Laika, the Space Dog:
And since you’ve gone around in so many circles I wonder if you might be getting dizzy?
Don’t stare at that image too long. You might do yourself an injury and with government provided healthcare you are likely to die before being treated.
P.S. Nationalizing industry means you are seizing private property for government use against the will of those who own it. Understand?
DW 5000
17 years ago
Well, Mike, it would mean something if you could back it up with something I actually wrote, rather than something you wish I’d written.
DW 5000
17 years ago
P.S.: Please tell me which part of this sounds like nationalization:
The oil companies can continue to do what they do around the world and in whatever domestic deposits they’re currently drilling. We’ll take their taxes, they’ll continue to make money.
Or this:
Actually, I never said that 4-8% was excessive. In fact, I said that the oil companies should go ahead with what they’ve been doing that has yielded their apparently minuscule profits.
Are you saying that keeping ANWR off-limits to oil companies is “nationalization?” If so, it’s a definition I never encountered anywhere.
You seem to be suggesting that the only acceptable drilling in ANWR would be drilling conducted by a private corporation. Why would that be? I thought that the whole point was that we needed the oil for our domestic use. I don’t see why you’d want to reduce our bang-for-buck ratio by pissing some of the benefits away into private coffers.
Mike’sA #38… feel free to post away on the Obama “change” with his no public financing. The combo of the two is a great theme about the boy who hates big oil, but has no problem taking the bucks from big banking…. which of course is a bigger, badder industry than oil.
Here’s a few archived articles I had to help you on your way.
This first one is possibly my favorite. (that’s why it’s saved! :0)) From, believe or not, the very socialist/progressive Common Dreams site, where they rip him a new one for misrepresenting his acquisition of lobbyist money…. You’ll get the gist after you read it.
These two SourceWatch pages are chock full of links, which is a good start to tracking down some original source material. Since Congresspedia is editable, like Wiki, I may read, but verify thru more traditional sources with better credibility. But it gets your head to thinking…
Thanks MataH. I already jumped the gun and posted a short one on the subject.
And just to amplify, here’s the list of Obama’s big PAC contributors from Open Secrets.org
Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262
So, Mike’sA… you do know how to use that FA “edit” button, right?? LOL You really should add this stuff in to your post when you get a chance so it’s all archived in one place. You’d be surprised how handy these archives are a few months down line.
Dems have raised gas prices $2 per gallon in seventeen months and the price of everything else with it. What is the top line they are shooting for? $10 per gallon by Jan?
Scrapiron: That reminds me of this chart:
we need to drill, all the idiots out there think that bush controls all oil in thenation, hell the world. if there was oil under the leased land we would have found it and drilled. so much for all of the election year promises that the dems promised to take the house. anyone with half a brain knows how oil is priced, and to think we let these morons who think this way have children.
Scarpiron,
Please explain how dems have raised the price of oil.
The Dems either:
A) didn’t really have a “plan” that would work, if their “plan” existed at all,
B) didn’t implement the “plan” or,
C) implemented the “plan” and it failed miserably.
You get to choose which one you think it is.
They did try to pass a cap and trade bill which official estimates say will raise gas prices by $1.50 per gallon.
I’m not sure this bunch is smart enough to know up from down.
***
Dave,
Your query was not directed at me, but I will take the liberty of answering it.
The Dems have helped to raise the price of oil by continuing to stand in the way of additional production, thus limiting supply.
Fine, Aye Chi, that’s an arguable position, but Scrapiron says the dems affirmatively raised the price of oil. That ignores the realities of the world economy, over which no one in the United States on either side of the aisle has control.
BTW, I am still having computer problems despite everyone’s tech assistance. I was unable to respond on what had become a global warming thread. Was that really your response on the other oil drilling thread? As soon as I find a fix or a workaround I will respond on that thread.
Dave,
By continuing to stand in the way of an increased supply stream the Dems (and those who vote with them) are helping to increase the price of oil. Even when you consider the remainder of the big picture supply limitations are one of the big roots of the issue.
I cannot offer any computer advice above and beyond what you have already been offered.
I will suggest that the best thing you could ever do for yourself would be to download Firefox and get off of IE.
Dave Noble: Please check the links in the post above which compares the amount of offshore acreage available for exploration to the production of U.S. crude oil.
Here’s the chart in smaller form:
The arrow points to where the ban on offshore drilling was put in place. Larger image here.Democrats in Congress have done everything they could to choke off U.S. energy production.
They raised the price of oil simply by doing exactly nothing. They do nothing and hinder those who want to do something. They tell us we can’t drill our way out, hell children stomp there feet and hold their breath to get what they want also. Stop with the lies, we have done it their way for way too long. Drill now, drill everywhere, build refineries, Nuclear plants, clean coal. This would also make JOBS and create wealth for our people and the Nation in general. I know the Caribu will be mad. STFU already people over animals that will survive.
No they won’t. Caribou love the pipelines. It gives them warm places to mate.
Buzz: Here’s the photo from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields:
And with the newer technology, the footprint of oil production infrastructure would be even less intrusive in ANWR.
There is absolutely NO sound environmental reason not to drill EVERYWHERE.
Sure. I believe her. We’re a passive people, not particularly interested in aggressively shaping Iraq’s energy designs –even during record oil prices– that will hinge on US affairs in Iraq and oil prices abroad for years to come, especially when billions are involved.
Any proof to the contrary or is your is that your partisan conjecture showing?
$4 a gal=the price of food going up, the price of goods going up, the effect of paychecks going down, and the effect of taxes going down.
Can I get a NO BLOOD FOR OIL? Anyone? Anyone?
Dude, where’s my oil? I blame Bush. I mean, he told us that the US needed to invade Iraq to get its oil. Where is it? Must be with those WMD’s that the Democrats told us Saddam had before the war, right?
Scott,
Your no bid oil contracts in Iraq are on the way…
These are only service contracts but they are expected to boost production.
Here’s amplification of the Dems nit wit idea to nationalize oil refining:
Link: sevenload.com
It’s amazing how many socialists come out of the woodwork when they sense an opportunity to totally control the use of energy in this country.
See where this is going?
Higher prices = Conservation = Lower demand = Lower tax revenue = Tax increases to compensate.
A vicious circle.
Ask some of those folks who have been on water restrictions what their water bills look like these days.
No bid contracts?! OMG! What’d those oil companies do? Give em free consulting for the past 5yrs or something?
I wonder if any of those EEEvil oil companies lost money or equipment during past/present conflicts in the region.
Dave Noble, we can’t have you cyber silenced, guy. If you can’t view all the thread comments, you can switch to the WordPress classic or default view to respond. My problem for that was cured when I updated to IE7.
If you switch to one of those views to respond, but then want to return to the flashy view for the bells and whistles (recent comments, etc), you either find the selection between the three (usuallyin the frames on the right). Or do a clean out of your cookes under Internet Options, and refresh the screen.
And if this has already been pointed out to you in other threads that I’m not aware of, forgive the repeated info, please.
It’s time to “Buy American”
Feed the hamsters Dave.
Feed the hamsters.
They’re hungry.
When you “break it, you own it;” it’s just that owning it is confined only to two groups:
Big oil companies flowing big campaign oil dollars into Republican coffers …at the rate of almost three to one over donations to Dems, a ratio still repeating itself in the McCain/Obama race.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
““The United States government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraq oil contracts.”–Rice
As opposed to pretty much every union organization, Hollywood, and the MSM, where a ratio of 3 to 1 for Dems over Republicans would be an improvement?
But you of course believe that the Bush Administration has their hand in the cookie jar in the dealings between privately owned businesses and a foreign nation that needs assistance quickly in their lifeblood industry.
If only the Democrats idea of nationalizing the oil industry would go through. That would certainly keep the government out of awarding business contracts. And if you want to know how good the government is at running businesses just look into their time running the brothel in Nevada. They couldn’t even make money selling sex.
“organized labor” floods Dem candidates w moola. Who floods organized labor?
Have some fun, go to the Federal Election Commission website, look up a Dem, and see what groups paid em. It’s sad. Ohhhhhh, but oil companies are eeeeeeeevil.
They cannot make money running a restaurant either.
There’s obviously controversy surrounding oil companies. Let’s take them out of the equation. If the issue is getting the oil out of the ground, maybe a not-for-profit government-run operation would be the best choice for getting the job done. Oil drilling by the people, for the people.
The gas produced would be marginally cheaper because the government outfit would not be shooting for the record profits we’ve all heard about the oil conglomerates getting over the past few years.
Big Oil is doing fine on its own, isn’t it?
DW,
You want the gov’t, the same people who cannot run the Senate restaurant without a loss, to run an oil business?
That’s funny.
Here’s a little research project for you:
Do you know what the profit percentage is for an oil company?
How does that compare with other industries?
Do you know how many millions of dollars are paid in taxes by oil companies every year?
Please do better coming back with an answer than you did on the Haditha thread.
Sounds oh so good in theory, DW. As a matter of fact, I’m on a PUD for my electricity, and it’s among the most inexpensive in the nation. Then again, that’s a small peanuts operation (probably under 20k households), and not a national entity. Socialism is always more effective in intimate family/community settings.
So perhaps the best example of a nationalized energy plan (oil companies as well as utilities) is Chavez and Venezuela. And that’s an oft tried experiment that isn’t going so well. While they’ve always had a high poverty rate, the equalization has merely brought more people down to almost poverty level, and raised only a few. The wealthiest are, of course, Chavez and his thug buddies who believe that the communist manifesto only applies to the populus, and not to their personal finances. (Note: linked to my own posts to avail you of the multiple source articles I used)
Lest ye think we might be a different critter, a President Obama’s suggested policies are also socialistic in nature. Revenue income from a nationalized oil company not only contributes to a gas guzzling mentality, would a POTUS then be inclined to drop that govt cash into a welfare state? And when most of the nation exists on govt subsidies, and oil revenue output starts declining for lack of private production investment (again, as is happening in Venezuela), where’s the cash to support the nation’s citizenry?
So I must disagree on an economic level. While the failures of a socialist system are not apparent at the outset, history has proven it time and time again to be a losing proposition in the long run. By that time, reversal is a painful, if not impossible, endeavor (ala Russia) Prices and quality are always superior with private enterprise competition than monopoly… govt or otherwise. Even price caps (ala Carter) were devastating for the nation.
I can’t blame the oil companies. They are the primary driving force to this nation’s rise to superpower, our superior technological advances (oil’s used in plastics, PC boards, medical… tons of places besides energy), and our quality of life. We owe much to the “big oil” evil industry. Yet as our demand for more benefits increase, they have faced opposition for expansion, exploration and development by prohibitive legislation. We are here by our Congressional failings, beholding to the environmental lobby … no refineries, no domestic oil production by private firms. It cannot be any more simple than more supply (including refining) = lower prices.
Lastly, oil companies are in the business of energy. If they are believers in peak oil (and they cannot afford to ignore that possibility), they too are looking to utilize what not so windfall profits they reap to fuel alternatives R & D… a very expensive proposition. It’s what also holds back the more profitable industry, prescription drugs, from making the gains they could. The R&D and long approval time kills the end profit structure. So they do not embark on the path to fruition.
.
You want the gov’t, the same people who cannot run the Senate restaurant without a loss, to run an oil business?
I thought that the issue was getting the oil out of the ground so we could use it and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The oil companies can continue to do what they do around the world and in whatever domestic deposits they’re currently drilling. We’ll take their taxes, they’ll continue to make money. We’ll get slightly cheaper oil because we’re cutting out the middle man.
Obviously, if we drilled in ANWR, we’d need to keep whatever we get off the world oil market. Selling off our domestically-produced oil would not go very far toward reducing our foreign dependency.
Do you know what the profit percentage is for an oil company?
No I don’t. It doesn’t matter. “Record profits” are record profits. If they don’t like their margin, they can get into some other line of work.
Mata Harley:
Nothing credible I’ve seen suggests that drilling the oil in ANWR would be a long-term proposition.
DW, 4-8% of a larger number is always a “record”. But on a P&L statement, 4-8% is still 4-8%. Most companies will not survive at that rate. Rule of thumb is more like 30%.
So hardly “windfall”. As the profit structure rises, so does the cost of doing business. It’s a number relative to the overall increase on both debt and income.
ADDED: INRE ANWR, it is not the only location, nor should it be. However over 9-12 bil barrels is nothing to snooze at. It would help Alaska’s economy.. who is for it, BTW. And, as I said, it should not be the only location. Relieving max output demands because of multiple sources elongates the term of operation.
The same could be said for the airline industry, DW. And should the privateers remove their business, what do you suggest?
DW said: “I thought that the issue was getting the oil out of the ground so we could use it and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
Yes, and anyone who thinks that big government can do that more effectively and efficiently at a lower cost might be interested in some stock for a buggy whip corporation I am selling.
Why is it that the libs first answer to every problem is more and larger government and an attack on private enterprise?
I’ve worked in the heart of big government and I can tell you that if it can’t even manage a restaurant, I don’t want it determining how, when and at what cost I get gas.
And if you think oil companies make too much money maybe you would also like to nationalize these guys:
You mean like the rest of the world which is almost all government run oil companies, typically larger than any of our private companies.
Yeah because the government never tries to make money. That’s why we never pay them anything. Come on use your brain. The only reason the government doesn’t shoot for record profits is because they have no clue how to spend less than they take in. Any money that would qualify as profit to a private company would be wasted like a baby eating spaghetti by the government.
You really don’t have a concept of supply and demand do you.
DW,
I hate to be crass, but you really don’t have a clue do you?
In order to have an intelligent conversation here you’re going to need to have some sort of grasp on at least the basic facts and a willingness to learn and fill in the blanks as you go along.
Saying that a key factor of the discussion “doesn’t matter” does not foment progress. Furthermore, if it doesn’t matter as you say, then why are you complaining and why are we even discussing it?
The answer to the profit percentage question is that it varies from 4% to 8%.
“Record profits” as reported in the press means record dollars, not record percentages.
Let’s say you sold 100 mangoes in June @ $1.00ea. Then, in July you sold 125 @ $1.00ea. In each month you made 5% profit. July would be a “record profit” month even though your selling price and percentage stayed the same. Only your volume (demand) increased.
Tell me, if you will, what makes 4-8% excessive? (This is an opinion so there is no research necessary here.)
What percentage would be acceptable in your eyes? (Same as above, this is your opinion.)
The oil companies like their profits just fine. They’re not the ones complaining.
Maybe you, and those like you, should get out of their business.
BTW, Mike’sA… great graphic for visual impact. I’ve see the line up of the highest profit industries in text, but have had a hard time finding the same documentation when looking for the link. That’ll teach me not to archive something… for a change!
I knew pharmaceuticals was #1. Forgot banks were #2.
Which, of course, makes it more than interesting for Obama, whining about “big, bad oil” money and the GOP. Yet the PACs that launched his Prez campaign? (and those “private funds” he’ll be depending on now that he’s abandoned his “principles” for the general…) Primarily banking… the #2 big money industry and lobbyists.
But of course, that’s probably an “off limits” subject like his pastors, his business associates, his middle name, his ears, his wife, etc etc.
MataH: That link between Obama’s fundraising and big money interests would be especially timely to post on considering his decision to reject public financing. I’m reading on the subject now, but feel free to post on it before I do. I was more interested in the hypocrisy of Obama claiming to be such a supporter of public financing but then dumping it when he sensed a political advantage.
P.S. I like the London Times headline: “Barack Obama accused of ‘betrayal’ for spurning public cash”
Mike’s America:
And if you think oil companies make too much money maybe you would also like to nationalize these guys:
I didn’t know we were in a telecomm crisis. Or a food and beverage crisis. And I’m not talking about totally nationalizing the industry. Before you accuse me of saying something that I didn’t say, read my post.
Hmmmm… so what you are saying DW is that anytime we have a crisis (or Dems can manufacture one) it would be ok to nationalize industries and seize the private property of individuals?
Well, let’s look at the chart again:
The top of that list is the pharmaceutical industry. Aren’t we also in a health care crisis? Don’t drugs cost too much? Shouldn’t the government seize that private property too?
And what about 2nd and 3rd on the list: banks and diversified financial institutions. Aren’t we suffering from a mortgage crisis and didn’t Bear Stearns financial almost go under? Shouldn’t we seize all that private property too?
Again, you the first thing you people think of to address a problem is to create a BIGGER problem by getting big government involved.
After working for government for a number of years I can tell you from personal experience that whatever government touches, it screws up.
The answer to the profit percentage question is that it varies from 4% to 8%.
“Record profits” as reported in the press means record dollars, not record percentages.
Oh. Which would you rather have–4% of one hundred dollars, or 4% of, say, a trillion dollars? By your reasoning, it wouldn’t matter, because 4% is such a teeny tiny number.
Tell me, if you will, what makes 4-8% excessive? (This is an opinion so there is no research necessary here.)
What percentage would be acceptable in your eyes? (Same as above, this is your opinion.)
Actually, I never said that 4-8% was excessive. In fact, I said that the oil companies should go ahead with what they’ve been doing that has yielded their apparently minuscule profits.
What I wrote was that if we’re in a genuine oil crisis that requires rescinding the drilling ban in various places around the country, and if this is a matter of national survival, why should any of the dollars go to a private corporation? How about a tradeoff where Lefties say, “go ahead and drill in these previously out-of-bounds areas, but, since this is an emergency, the money shouldn’t be going to a for-profit outfit?”
Hmmmm… so what you are saying DW is that anytime we have a crisis (or Dems can manufacture one) it would be ok to nationalize industries and seize the private property of individuals?
Wow. Are you being deliberately obtuse? “Seize the private property of individuals?” I challenge you to find a quote where I said we should do that.
Buzz:
You really don’t have a concept of supply and demand do you.
Yeah, I get it just fine. But isn’t the idea that we’re in a crisis? Don’t we have to rescind the ban on drilling in these places because we’re having some kind of emergency? If the only way we’re going to survive is to get that formerly off-limits oil out of the ground, why on earth would we sell it abroad? Where do supply/demand and profit/loss work into the equation? We need the oil, right? Isn’t the idea that we use it once it has been taken out of the ground?
You keep going around in circles comrade DW… I’ve decided to award you the order of Laika, the Space Dog:
And since you’ve gone around in so many circles I wonder if you might be getting dizzy?
Don’t stare at that image too long. You might do yourself an injury and with government provided healthcare you are likely to die before being treated.
P.S. Nationalizing industry means you are seizing private property for government use against the will of those who own it. Understand?
Well, Mike, it would mean something if you could back it up with something I actually wrote, rather than something you wish I’d written.
P.S.: Please tell me which part of this sounds like nationalization:
The oil companies can continue to do what they do around the world and in whatever domestic deposits they’re currently drilling. We’ll take their taxes, they’ll continue to make money.
Or this:
Actually, I never said that 4-8% was excessive. In fact, I said that the oil companies should go ahead with what they’ve been doing that has yielded their apparently minuscule profits.
Are you saying that keeping ANWR off-limits to oil companies is “nationalization?” If so, it’s a definition I never encountered anywhere.
You seem to be suggesting that the only acceptable drilling in ANWR would be drilling conducted by a private corporation. Why would that be? I thought that the whole point was that we needed the oil for our domestic use. I don’t see why you’d want to reduce our bang-for-buck ratio by pissing some of the benefits away into private coffers.
DW:
You make less sense with every comment. How old are you anyway?
Mike’sA #38… feel free to post away on the Obama “change” with his no public financing. The combo of the two is a great theme about the boy who hates big oil, but has no problem taking the bucks from big banking…. which of course is a bigger, badder industry than oil.
Here’s a few archived articles I had to help you on your way.
This first one is possibly my favorite. (that’s why it’s saved! :0)) From, believe or not, the very socialist/progressive Common Dreams site, where they rip him a new one for misrepresenting his acquisition of lobbyist money…. You’ll get the gist after you read it.
These two SourceWatch pages are chock full of links, which is a good start to tracking down some original source material. Since Congresspedia is editable, like Wiki, I may read, but verify thru more traditional sources with better credibility. But it gets your head to thinking…
The Big industry contributors
PACs, bundlers, etal, going back to his Senate run in 2004
Thanks MataH. I already jumped the gun and posted a short one on the subject.
And just to amplify, here’s the list of Obama’s big PAC contributors from Open Secrets.org
Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262
So, Mike’sA… you do know how to use that FA “edit” button, right?? LOL You really should add this stuff in to your post when you get a chance so it’s all archived in one place. You’d be surprised how handy these archives are a few months down line.