Hey! Boys and Girls! Let's Start an Oil Comapny

Only if you want higher prices and gas lines. The government is incapable of operating a business efficiently.

The government is incapable of operating a business efficiently.

This tired line again? If that is the case, then why are businesses so scared of government getting involved? More like the government is not inclined to gouge customers/employees/environment in order to achieve record profits every quarter.

I agree government could get involved to some degree. Not to take over markets, but to supplement and prevent corporate giants from taking over. A few government refineries to prevent supply manipulation, a few government pharmceutical facilities to prevent shortages of drugs that big pharma doesn't care to make anymore. And probably most important, government insurance to keep the private industry honest.

Since you appear to be bereft... the Liberal Criminals (I know that's redundant)...

Since you appear to be incapable of responding without insults and trollish behavior, your opinion on the matter is obviously tainted. Good luck with your outstanding social skills.

nationalizing private property is unconstitutional

How is our oil "private property"?

The government is incapable of operating a business efficiently.

You don't have to be particularly efficient in the oil business. The U.S. government owns 1/3rd of all land in the U.S. Rather than lease it out so private businesses can profit from oil drilled from public land there should be a public oil company to drill and sell oil from public lands. Look around the world. State oil companies are big money makers for governments the world over. The irrational fear of all things socialist just gives us higher prices at the pump and a larger national debt. When the government owns the resources at the very least it should be the people that profit from it.

Liberals promote theft of property. Theft is a crime. Therefore Liberals are criminals. QED. No insult intended. Just a recitation of the facts, followed by rigorous analysis. The makers are starting to wake up and we are starting to call it as it is. BTW....look on this board and Liberal use of curse words and name calling far exceeds...by orders of magnitude, conservative use. I hope this helps you.

State oil companies are big money makers for governments the world over.

Apparently the new message from the right is that the U.S.A. is less capable of governing than Iran.

I have asked this question multiple times and have yet to receive an answer....What authoritative/credible source, either secular or religious, opines that it is right, moral and proper to forcibly take property from one person for the purpose of giving it to another? So we are clear...I am not referring to taxation for public services, such as firemen, Military of Police. I am referring to redistribution of property/wealth, such as Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps and PELL grants and the like. Please answer the question.

State oil companies are big money makers for governments the world over.

Apparently the new message from the right is that the U.S.A. is less capable of governing than Iran.

The second sentence does not logically follow from the first. However...given Iran's progress in achieving its major foreign policy objective (nuclear weapons) and our objective in preventing that occurrence, I would say Iran is well outperforming the US in the Foreign Policy aspect of governance.

Next.

nationalizing private property is unconstitutional

How is our oil "private property"?

Oil on Federal Lands is "our oil," but only if you believe in the concept of Federal ownership of real-estate. I will stipulate to that for the sake of argument. Oil on private property IS private property.

What is unconstitutional is the Federal government being in the oil business. It's not an enumerated power. The way the Feds get around this is by claiming ownership of federal lands and then leasing them to the oil companies for exploitation.

So, legally the Feds only have two choices, lease the land for the oil companies to exploit, or the oil sits in the ground.President Obama appears to be trying COA #2. If you notice....the majority of oil expansion and development has been on private land.

Regards,

Mike

Liberals promote theft of property. Theft is a crime. Therefore Liberals are criminals. QED.

Taxation is a constitutionally established role of the government and therefore explicitly not illegal, therefore not a crime in this country. QED.

Andrew,

You are partially correct...taxation in and of itself is legal...and a good idea in order to support the constitutional functions of government...as I addressed previously. Where taxation becomes illegal, unconstitutional...essentially, forcible theft, is when it is done for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution and for the purposes of redistributing property. You cannot get around this. I will ask again...What credible authority or source...secular or religious, opines that forcibly taking from one person for the purposes of giving it toantoher, is correct, proper or moral. I will help refine your search a bit...It's not in the US Constitution.

Where taxation becomes illegal, unconstitutional...essentially, forcible theft, is when it is done for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution and for the purposes of redistributing property.

The 16th amendment in particular is completely open ended. No where does it state what the raised funds must be spent on. Whether any particular program is constitutional or not is completely divorced from the congresses right to raise taxes in virtually any amount they see fit.

Andrew,

The 16th amendment in particular is completely open ended. No where does it state what the raised funds must be spent on. Whether any particular program is constitutional or not is completely divorced from the congresses right to raise taxes in virtually any amount they see fit.

I wouldn't bet the ranch on that one. Still and all, once the government uses my money for an unconstitutional purpose, it retroactively makes the taxation for that purpose...theft. I ain't a lawyer...but if I could get a fair hearing, I could win that fight.

Problem is, there will never be a fair hearing when it comes to taxation. it is against the interests of both parties to quash that kind of thinking. it's also why our Federal budget is out of control. It is also killing liberty.

Thanx for the interesting discussion tho.

Regards,

Mike

luther,

didn't you hear the news, the Bush administration actually wanted to nationalize the tar sands in Canada.

There are HUGE revenues generated by oil and gas. Recently, in the Dallas / Ft. Worth area, there have been revenue concerns because they have already gotten used to the money and the drilling has been cut back some.

Yes, revenues for the Government are certainly generated, however we also pay out $16bn in HUGE public subsidies as well, they essentially canel each other out. In consideration of the actual money involved in what is the most profitable industry in the history of mankind, I would say that actual revenues to the government are a pittance.

Personally, I would like to see the the profits from oil trade "throttled". It's our oil, who says that companies like Exxon-Mobil are entitled to the kind of profitability they currently enjoy? I think there is a public stake as well as a legal precedent that they not be allowed to make that much money in what is essentially a monopoly of a vital resource.

Daniel,

Tell me please, what is the oil companies' profit margin? Gross profit percentage? I'll give you a hint...it is several orders of magnitude lower than the computer industry. Also, for all you "populists" out there...where do you think oil company profits go? The idea of "throttling" oil company profits is childish at best, criminal at worst.

Regards,

Mike

we also pay out $16bn in HUGE public subsidies as well

Name the subsidies paid to oil companies. Most of the credits (subsidies) have to do with "green" energy. More Liberal use of the tax code to pick winners & losers. I agree....stop ALL the credits, deductions...all of it. Everyone pays the same for the same service.

Tell me please, what is the oil companies' profit margin?

What type of oil company are you referring to. There are many types and some are more integrated than others.

1) Exploration - finding
2) Development - extracting
3) Refinery - production into usable products
4) Retail - gas stations.

You can't just look at it from the industry as a whole, you have to look at the different segments. One example is the refinery, and you may think that it is profitable as a whole, but the reality is that the margins are generally razor thin, because they are getting squeezed by both the price of crude, and right now the lack of demand. Retail has never really been all that profitable, and if it wasn't for the 'goodwill' that they provide to the company (has anyone ever heard of Valero, well they are one of the largest refiners in the country), I would suspect that most of them would have been spun off by now into independent companies, etc... Exploration is hit or miss, and the development side, that is subject to the markets as well because the cost to extract isn't related to the cost of crude.

It really is a high risk business in a lot of ways.

I can tell you what the oil companies don't invest in--a better way to clean up the messes they make.

and sorry, that first line should have been quote blocked.

Jonathan,

Your four points, plus your bottom paragraph headed exactly where I was going...Oil companies make profit on volume...the margins are pretty small though. When people say things like "huge revenues," they appear to either not understand the business or they are being disingenuous. "Huge revenues," mean exactly nothing...until compared to "costs," huge or otherwise. As we all know....Revenues minus costs = profit...mas o menos.

Regards,

Mike

OK, Mike. Back in 1997, just as Exxon-Mobil became Exxon-Mobil:

Exxon-Mobil posted YEARLY profits $11.8 billion on $203.1 billion of revenue.

By 2008 Exxon-Mobil posted profits of $45.22 billion on $459.58 billion of revenue.

So you see, profits have quadrupled since 1997 whilst net revenues have doubled. All this might seem the most fantastic profit growth in a decade except that there is MORE: Total daily production remains about the same. You can look at total yearly production over the last 3 years and see that it is going down, not up. Improving the margins even further.

In 2008 Exxon-Mobil posted the highest profits in the history of history.

h**p://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000119312510042929/d10k.htm

Where do the profits go?...to Exxon-Mobil, derp.

Mike, to answer your question, Exxon Mobil's profit margin is currently @ 9%. Which means that for every dollar they make only 9% goes to profit.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=xom

On the other hand, Apple's gross profit margin is 44%..... and 44% of their money goes to profit. I wonder what an I-pad or I-phone, or I-book would cost if their profit margin was 9%......

http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=AAPL

Seems to me that Apple is the one making obscene profits, not Exxon-Mobil.

I suppose Apple's margins of profits are of concern to those who cannot live without their Iphones and Ipads, regardless, these good are of no importance to society or the economy, the public has no stake whatsoever in the production and distribution of their goods. If you dont like Apple's modus operendi, dont buy their products, it's as simple as that. (I don't) If Apple's production was to suddenly cease, it wouldn't have an effect on the price of of bread, the worlds economy would not collapse. The same cannot be said for oil, it reaches down to the very foundation of modern life for virtually every human being on planet Earth. For someone to invoke a correlary relationship between the two is the most intellectually dishonest and facile analogy I have ever read.

I realize that many people come to these boards just to get into pissing matches. I come here in good faith to be an honest broker of ideas and discussion. If you cannot see the why your analogy has no bearing on this discussion, then there is nothing to talk about here.

I can see your point, but when someone criticises the amount of profit, then I think it is a valid comparison.

Here's a link that was part of a medical profits discussion but shows many industries.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp

I believe I was referring to the shear scale of profit, to which there is no parallel. I hope this clarifies any misunderstandings.

I'm just going to try and break my position down:

Oil is vital resource, I hope no one has a problem with at least that idea. As it is a vital resource I believe that there is a public stake and interest in how it is extracted, refined and brought to market. I also think that because it is a vital resource that there is also a public stake and legal precedent (anti-trust laws) to the limiting of power and profit of those who currently have autonomous control over it. I'm not against Exxon-Mobil or any other company turning a dime, good for them. What I am opposed to is the idea that our dependency on this vital resource is for all intent and purposes free from any form of democratic control. We're talking about life and death (seriously) for the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet. Forgive me if I don't believe that those who currently hold this resource over our heads might not always have the public interest at heart.

I appreciate your comment SCTexan. Thanks

Just for further discussion.......

In our area there are hundreds of thousands of people getting checks from the local gas/oil companies. They are basically selling the raw gas or oil to the oil company who takes it and then sells the final product on the open market. If the oil company was not paying these royalties, I could agree with you. Look at Alaska, each citizen gets a check for something like $1.7k as their share of the revenues the state collects from it's public properties.

Since we got ours selling it to them, why should we now tell them how much they can sell the final product for?

These wouldn't necessarily have to disappear if a more democratic control was instituted. Also, according to the census bureau, Alaska is the second least populated state in the union with 550,000. C'mon.

"Democratic control"? Of a private enterprise? That sounds an awful lot like nationalization... which is, to use a bad word, fascist. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a "free market" solution to me.

I think you are confusing your terminology. It isn't fascism for the democratically elected representatives of the people of the United States to set and enforce contractual terms over an industry. We do it all the time.

There seems to be a lot this free-wheeling use of the word "fascism" going on and people calling people "Hitler" for whatever reason. I see it a lot on these boards by people who dont really have a point to contribute but who just want to refute your position with buzz words which dont really apply. For instance, if I were an uneducated person talking outta my ass, I probably could make the case that the way in which the US Government acts directly on behalf of the oil industry while ignoring the concerns of those who elected them is "fascist". But in the end, it's a just a limp pejorative used for dramatic effect and not really representative of the facts. I think you need a poli-sci and history course or two. Good day.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were implying. It seemed to me that you were recomending an economic situation that sounds something like this:

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Nope, that's not what I advocated at all.

However, as it is right now the state vigorously supports the cartels (trade consortiums) by handing out leases, who then maintain autonomous control over all aspects production. They control how much is extracted, refined and brought to market at any given time. So in some respects, if one so chooses, an individual could make the arguement that the current system is fascistic. I certainly wont, but others may. I think it's important to reserve that word for when it applies, lest it become so diluted as to have no meaning whatsover.

In the future, just try and see how long you can go in any given conversation without using that word. You'll be taken much more seriously, I promise. In the circles of discussion I run in, when someone immediately busts out the word "fascism" they lose the arguement by default. Low hanging fruit.