Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > June > 26 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWhy not nationalize oil?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
I’ve gotten several emails from readers wondering at my statement that any “new oil” pumped from our continental shelf or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be sold to Americans — or to foreigners — at the world price for oil. There would be no “hometown discount” to Americans for oil produced from American soil. Today, for example, we pay the same amount for a barrel of crude from the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana as we do for a barrel of similar quality from the Persian Gulf.
The question some readers have is why. Here’s the answer:
Under our current system, we Americans don’t own the oil pumped out of our territory. It’s owned by the private companies — Exxon, Chevron, etc. — who find it, drill it and pump it. And once they get it out of the ground, they sell it to the highest bidder. That’s how the industry works.
To get a “hometown discount,” we would have to nationalize our oil industry as countries such as Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have done. Then any oil pumped out of the ground would belong to the government, and the government could sell it to American consumers and businesses at less than the world market price. That’s how consumers in Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia can pay much less than the world rate for gasoline and oil.
Sounds great, right? No, not really. If we’re selling American oil to Americans at $60 a barrel, while the world price is $140 a barrel, some bad things happen. We’d all want to avoid that $140 oil and buy a lot of that $60 oil, putting great pressure on our domestic reserves and draining them much more quickly. It would be short-term gain and long-term pain, and we’ve had too much of that already.
We’d also be creating a false foundation for the economy. In effect, we’d be subsidizing petroleum use; the artificially low price would encourage more consumption at a time when conservation is necessary. In economic terms, it would send a false price signal. You simply can’t run the world’s biggest economy on heavily subsidized energy. Not for long, anyway.
Services »
Comments
By James
June 26, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this
You are right on this one ! Plus, what would be next ? Slippery slope.
By JR
June 26, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this
I’d be for it if it meant much cheaper gas, and that it stayed in America for American consumption. Only good thing about high prices is that it is forcing Americans to ponder and hopefully implement changes in their gluttonous lifestyles.
By L.D.
June 26, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
If, as in a recent poll, 80% of Americans want to drill for oil on our own soil, why are democrats in Congress and the media so content to sit back and say “sorry, not gonna let you do it, you’re just gonna have to suffer?” I thought it was only the Republicans who were anti- little guy here. Keep in mind there are democrats who drive trucks that keep goods flowing in America and need lower gas prices, democrats who farm and need fuel cost low so they can feed the world, yet no democrat offers them realistic solutions. Instead they get a steady diet of ‘no new drilling’ and no realistic alternatives to the problem. They don’t even get a gas tax break, which at the very least psychologically would give Americans the idea that someone gives enough of a damn in Washington to do something to help. And yes, like it or not, it has more to do with supply and demand, and no, government takeover of ‘big oil’ doesn’t guarantee us anything except giving more power to those in Washington who already act like they could care less how this is hurting us. Sorry, Jay, but we need realism with our energy future, not just talk of government takeover and ‘hope’(or hype) of alternatives to oil that are years away from widespread use in society and even further away from being affordable to all.
By Bosch
June 26, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
Jay,
It’s hard to argue about this topic, I’m surprised that McCain has kept up with his “let’s drill” mantra. The average American voter doesn’t stop and think about the big picture.
Obviously, the average American voter doesn’t see the big picture considering who we’ve had for President for the past eight years.
I was thinking the other day about the Big Oil no-bid contracts and how it seems now that the war has been about oil all along. It’s really sad to think about and you’d think the “liberal media” would be howling at the hilltops about this.
By Me Again
June 26, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
I can’t believe I am saying this but I actually agree with Bookman on this one. Although the economics are a bit fuzzy and incomplete in his column, he is on the right track. I thinks Jay misses a huge point in that the government does nothing efficiently, so the energy policies needed to enact something like this would be grossly laden with pork projects and the inevitable kickbacks that follow would eventually pull the savings out of the pocket of American consumers and find their way to the politicians. Alternative fuels and good old fashion belt tightening is what is needed. We will get there, but not with gov’t regulations and oversight. The free market will take care of this.
By ConservativeDem
June 26, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Jay oil should not cost more than $60 a barrel! It is NOT supply and demand! The media has LIED TO US!! Supply and demand is based upon a free economy. We do not have that when cartels can simply shut off the spigets and our money greed oil companies follow suit. Then the speculators have to make a few millions off the average American. I do not like the government involved in a free economy but we are not dealing with that now. I say yes to making oil a Utility company like the ones we have now.
By connorlarkin
June 26, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
Remind neocon readers that Oil Companies have to pay a peanut size ‘12 %’ royalty (I know they thank the ‘W’ boosters for SUCH A DEAL) for drilling on offshore public lands. Along with billions in tax breaks while two Big Oil ‘poverty pension packages to Exxon Mobil and Occidental CEOs totaling $500,000,000 and $400,000,000 respectively, how is Big Oil gonna make it on such poverty perks? How can they afford $4.00 per gallon gas for their fleet of limos?
By connorlarkin
June 26, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this
Remind neocon readers that Oil Companies have to pay a peanut size ‘12 %’ royalty (I know they thank the ‘W’ boosters for SUCH A DEAL) for drilling on offshore public lands. Along with billions in tax breaks while two Big Oil ‘poverty pension packages to Exxon Mobil and Occidental CEOs totaling $500,000,000 and $400,000,000 respectively, how is Big Oil gonna make it on such poverty perks? How can they afford $4.00 per gallon gas for their fleet of limos?
By Rob
June 26, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
The reasons not to nationalize the oil industry are the same reasons not to nationalize health care - primarily, it’s not the government’s job to provide either. They do, however, need to stand aside so the free market can work. 97% of the land off our coasts is off limits to exploration, yet the Chinese can drill 65 miles off the coast of Florida? Something seems a little out of whack to me…
Yes, the oil companies have millions of acres of leased land they are not drilling on. Why? Because there’s not enough oil there to prove worth wile. Kind of like the same reason there was no gold rush in Florida.
So many people LOVE the idea of sticking it to the oil companies using the mindless “windfall profits ” tax. Will someone please tell me exactly how this will bring down the cost of oil?
By Craig Lowe
June 26, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
Don’t open that box. When as there ever been a time when an government run project been cheap and efficient. You think that the feds can manage the oil and gas distribution in this country and the price would go down. Come on these are the same jokers that pay $500 for a hammer.
By hillbilly ragger
June 26, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
LD, which poll showed 80% support for drilling?
Rob, the wingnut talking point is that the Chinese can drill 90 miles off the coast of florida. Except that they’re not actually doing that. But at least get the mileage right if you’re going to repeat weeks-old, discredited, Cheney-already-apologized-for, wingnut talking points.
Jay, smarter trolls, please.
Oh, and another nice column. It’ll be even funnier when the wingnuts call you “socialist” now that you’re on record as being opposed to nationalized oil since it’d screw up the marketplace.
Not that this will stop them from calling you “socialist”, mind you.
By ConservativeDem
June 26, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
All of you keep saying,” They do, however, need to stand aside so the free market can work.” Please define a free market to me and then describe what we have with the oil companies! If you feel it is a free market I have some oil in my backyard and you can have for free. I am waiting!!!
By Observer
June 26, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
Jay, As I said on the other board, it’s rare that you and I agree politically but this is one of those times. I think you are spot on with this one. To nationalize the oil industry, or any other major component of our economy (ie healthcare) would prove to be a disaster in the long run.
Who knows, maybe there’s still a chance that we can convert you from the dark side. ;)
By LD
June 26, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
Exactly right, Rob. If you were to take into account the dem mantra that all oil companies are sinister and out to gouge you, then one would reasonably have to assume they’d manipulate the markets to pass a ‘windfall tax’ down to us at the pump.
But hey, at least the dems have GREAT intentions, right?
By zeke
June 26, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
Damn! Has Jay finally had a capitalistic, free market, American way thought???
By BFKaJ
June 26, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
Everytime oil prices went up in the past forty years, there have been congressional hearings.
Everytime, Big Oil testified the exact same way with the exact same mantras about exploratory costs, low refinery investment returns, and the world market. They’ve even had the nerve to blame rising diesel prices on the gasoline truck’s delivery costs to the gas stations.
Everytime, some congressman would threaten to nationalize domestic oil. and everytime, Big oil would say, “Go ahead, if you want high prices and no oil.”
Well, we’ve got high prices and refinery supply problems. Not nationalizing has not payed off at all.
We should have nationalized oil and forced the axles of weasel, GM, Ford, and Chrysler to obey our legislated CAFE standards.
Then, we would be paying a buck for gas, maybe less, like the saudis do. The saudis pay less than fiddy cent for a gallon, because they’ve nationalized their oil, in a sense, they’ve monarchized it, look at the saudis royal family.
Look at the King of Saudi Arabia!. That is your king, behold his magnificence!! Viva la Saudi King!! Thanx to Boy George. WE are now a defacto monarchy because george owes the SAR so much.
W sold us out. I want our country back.
Obama 08: America takes over.
By Observer
June 26, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
ConservativeDem - Go to the floor of the Commodities Exchange in Chicago and watch crude oil futures contracts being bought and sold in a true open market format. That is the free market ecomony in it’s purest form. Can the price of the contract be manipulated by speculators? Yes, in the short run, which is happening currently to a degree but in the long run speculators usually overstay their positions and get burned. The free market is alive and well.
By Truth
June 26, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
Riiiiiight…. because the answer to everything is government. Are you people ready for rationing of gas????
By Me Again
June 26, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
To conservative dem- Dolt. Innovation doesn’t and likely won’t come from the oil industry. Did you miss your marketing and economics classes in college? Or did you not attend college? Do you think that the stagecoach manufacturers and the buggy whip marketers invented and introduced the automobile? Of course not! The innovation will come from enterprising Americans who work for or start a company with a product leadership strategy. The technology will likely be patented then licensed for use. It will then be adopted by the consumers. Do I really need to explain the free market dynamic to you? You shouldn’t be on here if you can’t contribute intelligently to the conversation.
By Gsmith
June 26, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Whoa, Jay. Been hanging with Wooten again haven’t you. Can’t blame you though with Cynthia going off the deep defending Lewis for throwing Hillary under the bus for Obambi. He didn’t get where he is today supporting the loosers. Oil speculation will explode in the same context as the subprimes in time. Then we will have another bailout program to save the CALPERs and all the retired teachers who have lost billions in the downturn. Might not happen such that W can be blamed but it will happen. I’m old enough to remember the gas lines for .50 cent a gallon gas and 10 gallon limits. Jimma couldn’t control it and neither will O’Bambi. At still least we don’t have the lines. Not yet anyway. Oh, Jay…hang with Maureen..she’s still focuses.
By Algonquin J. Calhoun
June 26, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
We don’t need to nationalize oil found within our territorial waters or in the pristine areas of ANWR. We need to get off oil! Hopefully, some brave company such as Tesla Motors will manufacture an electric automobile for those of us among the hoy paloy. They’ve already manufactured a magnificent roadster and here are a few details about it: The Tesla Roadster is a fully electric sports car, and is the first car produced by electric car firm Tesla Motors. The car can travel 220 mi (350 km)[2] on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack and accelerate from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 3.9 seconds with the development transmission. The Roadster’s efficiency is reported as 133 W·h/km (4.7 mi/kW·h), equivalent to 135 mpg–U.S. The automobile manufacturers and the oil companies have colluded for a very long time to keep electric automobiles from the American public. At one point in time, electric cars were available to lease but were never sold. When the leases were up all the car companies refused to renew the leases or to sell the automobiles to the consumers, many of whom had cash in hand. Instead, the cars, several different makes, were loaded onto transport trucks, taken to the Arizona desert and crushed. It’s time for a manufacturer to find the guts to step forward and give the American consumer what he/she needs-a dependable electric car. Then the fossil fuels could remain mere fossils and rest in peace-along with Exxon and all the other thieves who have robbed us for so long!
By Independent
June 26, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
Whew. I thought Jay was actually going to come out in favor of nationalizing our oil reserves. That would almost be as crazy as nationalizing our retirement benefits. Wait a second, we already do that and look how well that has turned out. While Americans should have a balance north of $1 Trillion dollars ($1.36T at the end of 2003) being managed like the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) does for their employees, we don’t. Our Federal government has spent it. We have no money in the so called “Social Security Trust Fund”. I can only imagine the fun Congress would have with the oil money.
By Rob
June 26, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
To hillbilly - after researching, I admit I was incorrect in saying the Chinese are drilling 65 miles off our coast. They are not. More importantly, however, is that they can, through a partnership with Cuba. U.S. oil companies cannot, thanks to our congressional ban on additional offshore drilling.
Hillbilly, you still have not told us how seizing oil company profits will bring down the cost of gasoline.
By newkid
June 26, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
Informing us rather than inciting us. How wonderful. Thanks Jay.
By sam
June 26, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Just drill. OPEC will freak out and increase production. The price will drop. Yeah, I know, it’s not quite that simple but the drilling - or the threat of drilling- will cause OPEC to increase production. The market will do the rest. Of course this is just a temporary fix. We need alternative energy production and Me Again is right that it will not come from oil companies. It won’t come from Detroit or Washington either.
By Tamika
June 26, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Well then Ole Miss Tamika is going to fill my car up with FART GAS!!
By CommunistAJC
June 26, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
JAY BOOKMAN, This PROVES that you and the AJC are nothing but communists. I truly hope that the AJC tanks very soon. You’re a HORRIBLE person. You know next to NOTHING on how the economy works and your opinion column proves it.
By hillbilly ragger
June 26, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
So Rob, you’re saying our government should follow… Cuba’s example?
As for how “seizing oil company profits will bring down the cost of gasoline,” I’m not planning to argue that since I’ve never advocated any such seizure.
I’m not really all that obsessed with applying some kind of bludgeon to bring down oil prices, anyway. I think the current economic difficulties we’re experiencing ought to induce some soul-searching about how we’ve structured our lives around relatively inexpensive gasoline and that we should endeavor to plan for a future that includes incentives for workable energy alternatives, sure, but mostly, for more sustainable residential and commercial development.
Of course that approach is not real sexy, and doesn’t win elections.
By Tamika
June 26, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Dont Vote Baracky Obama Our Energy cost will go through the Roof!!!
We all will be forced to buy into that BULLSHiiT carbon credit offset scam!!
By Algonquin J. Calhoun
June 26, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
In 1999, when our finest president, Bill clinton, was in office, a sixteen ounce bottle of water was more expensive than a gallon of gas.
By Tamika
June 26, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
WE NEED A NEW THIRD PARTY The DEMS AND REPULICANS HAVE SOLD OUR COUNTRY DOWN THE TOILET
Stop voting for those Greedy theiving frauds!!
By dobo
June 26, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
You folks fell asleep and watched the communist bankers hijack the country and did absolutely nothing about it.
You deserve everything that comes your way including $10.00 per gallon for gas.
Stop whining and cut back your expenses.
By Rodney The Fat Slob Mo ME MAN Who Makes GAS
June 26, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
WE NEED TO DRILL ASAP!!
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf
For all of you DRILLING proponents, your own REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED EIA shows in this report that drilling in the OCS will provide minimal supplies.
Barely 200,000 barrels/day at full production. WE USE 20,000,000 barrels/day and the WORLD USES 85,000,000 barrels/day. Do you really think 200,000 barrels/day will matter?
By George Cohen
June 26, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
You are all missing the point. It should be painfully obvious that the “investors” that are driving the cost of oil up are part of a scheme to do one thing and that is create fear to make people want to start drilling in places we decided not to for environmental reasons.
The public is being manipulated as they have been so many times before.
The big oil companies have had thier run for the last 8 years and the public has seen the results of thier greedy policies through thier puppet administration, George Bush and Dick Cheney.
With a new, Democratic administration on the way, they are playing thier last card by driving up oil prices to scare the hell out John Q. Citizen and are hoping to get thier way into drilling for “new Oil”.
It’s a con game.
I say it’s time for a better tactic from US.
The rising price of gasoline is hurting nearly every family in America. We are tired of Congress doing nothing but bowing down to the big oil companies.
We need to let them know who really owns the oil in this country and stop them from extorting US, the public.
We need to start the procedures to nationalize the oil companies. This gouging of the public has risen to the level of a National security crisis. Soon we will be past the tripping point and the cost of every product in this country will be so high that the country will implode. This cannot be allowed to happen.
The oil companies and the “investors’ they control are manipulating the market by driving the cost up. If we start the procedures to nationalize the oil companies, I will gaurantee the prices will drop to realistic levels.
Then we must explore and develop alternative energy, solar, wind and yes, even nuclear, to replace oil as the monopolistic energy source it is.
We are at war, and the enemy is within. Big oil must not be allowed to destroy our country. We MUST let them know who is the boss.
And the boss is US. The people.
By Algonquin J. Calhoun
June 26, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
By CommunistAJC June 26, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this JAY BOOKMAN, This PROVES that you and the AJC are nothing but communists. I truly hope that the AJC tanks very soon. You’re a HORRIBLE person. You know next to NOTHING on how the economy works and your opinion column proves it.
Comrade,
Perhaps some time in our gulag at Camp X-Ray would benefit your outlook on things. Thanks for the caps on horrible. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have gotten the impact of your pronouncement. Why don’t you enlighten us as to how the economy works? We’d love to read your theories and suppositions. Let me guess- no millionaire left behind? Bring it b***!
By comp133xi7y
June 26, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
JAY BOOKMAN, This PROVES that you and the AJC are nothing but communists. I truly hope that the AJC tanks very soon. You’re a HORRIBLE person. You know next to NOTHING on how the economy works and your opinion column proves it.
Explain to the class how advocating against nationalizing oil makes Jay a snicker Communist.
By Martha The Tank Maker
June 26, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
The winds of change and hope are blowing across America!!
Pooping on the floor is a change but not a good change. America had better wake the hell up. Or all our wealth will be taken by Greedy washington thugs!
By Me Again
June 26, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
To George Cohen- Typical leftist response. Let the government step in and control everything like a referee. I doth think you underestimate the power of the free market and the American consumer. I challenge you to name one industry that the government has taken over that resulted in lower prices for the consumer, better services, and more choice. When are people like George going to understand that monopolies (all monopolies) are a disaster for the consumer. I say again, the government does NOTHING efficiently.
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Arctic Drilling Wouldn’t Cool High Oil Prices
The same holds true for ANWR. Even if you only have 3rd grade education, you must realize that a few hundred thousand barrels of oil a day is not significant in relation to 85 million barrels a day. Or am I mistaken.
By theprogressivebigot
June 26, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
No nationalization, no drilling, no more cheap oil!
The environment just can’t take it anymore. And.., I love billion dollar highways, devoid of cars!!
By BoB
June 26, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
There are 345 Trillion Barrels of Oil out west we need to drill for.
PSCommunist scares the shiit out of me!!
By CJ
June 26, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Bookman said: “Under our current system, we Americans don’t own the oil pumped out of our territory. It’s owned by the private companies — Exxon, Chevron, etc. — who find it, drill it and pump it.”
I haven’t read the comments, so maybe somebody has already covered this — but I’m pretty sure that Jay is mistaken about this.
In fact, the oil in the ground belongs to us (you and me). The oil companies lease the land from us (via our federal government) to get to that oil and pay us (via our federal government) royalties for every ounce they pump. Incidentally, this is the reason I support the windfall profits tax—we’re getting screwed out of our royalties via various and sundry tactics employed by the oil companies in collusion with their friends in Bush administration.
To the extent that oil companies don’t pay a reasonable royalty (they don’t), we (you and me) have to make up the difference with our taxes.
By ByteMan
June 26, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Rob @ 9:35:
You said: * More importantly, however, is that they can, through a partnership with Cuba. U.S. oil companies cannot, thanks to our congressional ban on additional offshore drilling. *
They can drill 65 miles off the coast, because it’s in CUBAN waters, not USA or International waters. Cuba controls those leases. And were USA companies invited to participate? Nope. Why not? Because of the long-standing congressional ban on interactions with Cuba.
You need a better set of talking points. The ones you’re reading are the “For Dummies” version.
By Algonquin J. Calhoun
June 26, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
The Republinazi controlled government has colluded with and protected the big oil companies in a very efficient way. There is no difference betweden the government and the oil companies since they own the Republinazis.
By Sabine Carbines
June 26, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Sen. Craig is a stallwart GOP stall wort.
Dont you love that line?
By Taxpayer
June 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
I remember some of the times I spent sitting around the picnic table in the afternoon with my sisters and brother under one of the huge sweet gum trees in our yard. I mean, these sweet gums were huge. We’d all circle the tree with our arms stretched out and the tips of our fingers touching and we still couldn’t reach all the way around. Anyway. One day while we were sitting around the table in the shade, trying to cool off a little, our dad walked over with a couple of stalks of sugar cane and laid them down on the table. Of course at that time none of us knew what unrefined sugar was — we all thought it came naturally in those 5 lb Dixie Crystals bags. He sat down beside one of us — probably our baby sister since she was the spoiled one — took out his pocket knife and commenced with a ritual of shaving off strips of the hard outer shell, between joints, followed by ring cutting the softer inner portion near the joint deep enough to allow him to snap it off the remaining stalk. Then he proceeded with slicing up the juicy inner portion of the stalk and handing them out until everyone, including himself, had a piece. We just sat there looking up at him — waiting and wondering what came next. Then, he put one end of the freshly cut piece of sugarcane in his mouth and started chewing. We all did the same. We were all sitting there just chewing away until all that juice was gone and not saying a word. Anyway, I thanked the dentist for another job well-done, asked the receptionist to “charge it” and made my next appointment before heading out the door to the car. It’s odd how some memories just seem to pop into your head at the strangest times, dontcha know. You know, sugar cane is also an abundant source of energy. It sure kept us fired up on those lazy sunny afternoons.
By Copyleft
June 26, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
By the way, this is a good reminder that “what’s good for Exxon” has NOTHING to do with what’s good for the country… and Exxon would be the first to admit it.
They’re corporations; their duty is to their stockholders, not the countries where they develop or sell their stuff. That’s why they’ll charge us just as much for oil as they will any other country.
Remind me again why we give them tax breaks and custom legislation?
By grelican
June 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
A lot of conservatives seem to think that liberals, if they had their way, would nationalize everything, regulate everything, tax everything, and restrict everything.
Liberals have similar mythologies about conservatives. It’s a product of all of us living with people just like us, watching news for people just like us, and fearing people who aren’t just like us. Let’s put that aside for a moment.
Mr. Bookman represents a fairly mainstream view on many matters, though it may not sit well with the Ron Paul crowd most of the time. Fact is, those guys put ideology before the facts. Never a good idea.
Put down the Ayn Rand novels for a moment. The free market won’t solve all of our problems. In fact, there are precious few examples of completely free markets anywhere to be found. Why?
If the consumer doesn’t have perfect information about what they’re buying, they can’t make the rational choices they’re supposed to make on paper. For example, I trust doctors to make decisions about my health. I can’t just buy what I think I need, even if I could afford it.
If the producer decides to talk to other producers about how much they’ll charge for something, or how much of it they’ll make available to the public, well that’s OPEC… the choice of players in a free market to maximize the value of their product.
We established anti-trust laws at the beginning of the 20th century so the guys who make stuff don’t avoid competing, form cartels that charge whatever they want. Ultimately this would slow the growth of the whole system, even if it is in the interest of a handful of players in the market. If we hadn’t, we’d be working for one big company town by now— the same outcome as if we’d gone communist.
Markets are the way that people exchange goods and resources. That’s all. There’s nothing holy about it and it doesn’t always work how we want. Sometimes the government can help, if done with some forethought. There’s no ideology to it.
Oil is expensive precisely because of its functioning in an almost perfect free market environment. People are willing to pay what they pay, so people charge what they charge. Ayn Rand wins and we pay $140 a barrel.
If we want to change this, there are decisions that consumers can make, like conservation, demanding alternative fuels, moving closer to work, etc. Paying the Saudis and Exxon-Mobil more to do more of the same in the name of free markets is ludicrous.
There are things the government can do. 50 years ago the conventional wisdom might have been to nationalize the problem. We’ve seen what works about that and what doesn’t.
The government can put down some money as an investor in promising technologies, sponsor some university- and private sector-based research, and direct how our energy market functions. Government can mandate fuel economy standards. If it’s in our best interest, why not?
Government can’t be the market, but it can lead it towards solving some of our problems. It takes a little more vision than drilling of the coast of Florida.
That’s policy dinosaurs digging for dinosaur juice.
There is a modern liberal view of what government can do. No one’s talking about nationalizing anything. They are talking about directing money towards innovative solutions, not drilling deeper into the zero-sum game of oil consumption.
The assumption that government is always inefficient is false. Inefficiencies that arise can be corrected for with good governance, and sometimes government can solve problems that business can’t. Consider military research. We wouldn’t have transistors, lasers or modern plastics without pure government research. And that’s the short list.
Japan pulled itself out of WWII wreckage by having strong government direction in what Mitsubishi, Matsui and the other big companies were going to make. They wanted to make sure that industry responded to the needs of the voting public… and they demanded quality products that blew the competition away. Household brands like Sony and Toyota became what they are through heavy government involvement and coordination. That’s something that the market do.
You want to see a pure, free market? Check out the Congo. I hear it’s nice this time of year.
By Algonquin J. Calhoun
June 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Senator Bobblefoot has, reportedly, done a lot of drilling himself. He’s also had his personal geography explored for lubricants. He’s what you would expect a Republinazi senator to be. He’s for exploration and against gay marriage. He and Ted Haggard share the same ideologies.
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
{{PENSACOLA, FLA.—APRIL 2, 2022}}OIL SPILL THREATENS ENTIRE GULF COAST—Authorities are still trying to determine the best course of action to minimize the effects of a massive blowout in the Anadarko wellhead about 25 miles offshore from Destin.
Because of the prevailing southerly winds the oil is being driven relentlessly toward the most pristine vacation spots on the Gulf Coast. The oil is expected to begin washing ashore as early as Tuesday.
Anadarko Petroleum engineers say efforts to cap the wellhead have been hampered by strong currents and the difficulties of working at the depths where the wellhead is located. They remain optimistic, however, that the wellhead can be capped without further fouling of beaches.
Florida’s governor says it is likely the entire Gulf Coast resort area will be a total ruin. Leaving the economy in shambles. The expected cost of the cleanup will run into the billions of dollars.
Suits are already being drawn up against Anadarko. However, the company will likely declare bankruptcy—absolving itself of any financial responsibility. That, of course, leaves the taxpayers to foot the bill.
—From wire reports.
By Bosch
June 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
To all free market advocates:
Um, isn’t that what has gotten us into this mess to begin with?
By swolf4810
June 26, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
First things first… Make the oil companies uncap all those wells they closed off during the oil-bust of the eighties. Then REQUIRE them to fast track plans for massive expansion of refining capacity WHILE we work on alternatives.
By Lynn
June 26, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
Bosch Its over Govt. regulation that has goten us in this mess!! We cant drill for oil any where with out the commy tree huggers crying about Polar bears and ants.
So now we are going to use our Farm land to grow fuel —-ummm what about food???
By Greg
June 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
grelican
A Conservative: believes in individual FREEDOM and personal responsibility, economic capitalism, family, secular AND Christian education; supports his country even when it makes mistakes; sees the glass as half-full; tends to be pro-life; is optimistic about his country (Reagan’s great gift); accepts logical argument as a component of political action - not emotion, and adheres to conservative values when a new course of action is unclear.
What are Liberals all about?
By Plan Man
June 26, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
We all should start saving our fart gas. That will make us totally energy independant!!
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Umm, Lynn. Can I suggest that you pursue your GED? Also, you might invest in a dictionary.
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
Greg, here is Reagan’s great gift—a significant contribution to this country’s $9.4 trillion debt. A debt that we paid $416 billion interest on last year
The deficit run up during Reagan’s presidency is greater than ALL OF THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS ADDED TOGETHER.
By ThaMan
June 26, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
I take everything back that I’ve said bad about you. That column is right on!!!!!!!!!!!
By grelican
June 26, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
To Greg:
You ask: What are Liberals all about?
Fair enough.
I look at what you write and see that you put down a set of beliefs about economics, family, religion, education, etc. and then you state that you “accept logical argument as a component of political action, not emotion”.
How can that be the case if you’re so mired in your beliefs?
You write: “adheres to conservative values when a new course of action is unclear.”
When is it ever clear? Sounds like a reason to do the same things even it doesn’t work.
I congratulate you on a belief system that keeps you optimistic and sure of yourself. That has to feel good.
Liberals are far less likely to stand behind a name, far more likely to look at what’s wrong and propose new ideas. It’s not always a sunny way to be. It doesn’t blame the victim. There aren’t many more values to it than helping your fellow man and fixing the world’s wrongs where we can.
It doesn’t leave it to markets or personal responsibility to absolve our conscience from social responsibility. That’s being a Liberal, not being a commie or a treehugger, just seeking answers to problems beyond ourselves and our families.
Conservatives (and Greg) can spend all the time they want defining who they are to the exclusion of those who don’t meet their definitions of what’s virtuous. Liberals have spent 30+ years doing just that. Have fun. We’ll take care of solving some of America’s problems in the meantime. That’s what the public wants right now. Not Reagan telling us that it’s all OK.
See you in ‘09.
By drill not tax
June 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Obama wants to tax profits and calls increasing supplies a “gimmick” just because it will take a few years to become a reality. We need to increase supplies now to prevent $15/gallon gas in the near future.
By AL
June 26, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Liberals are so afraid of free enterprise.Let daddy government decide for us. They know what’s good for us. After all they are the husbands and fathers of millions of Americans. I trust them 100%. The decision the government has made to not build anymore refineries is a great idea. The world is not short of oil it is short on ways to convert it. WISE UP!
By gttim
June 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
The oil business is not a free and competitive market. If it was, Exxon would not be able to make a 34% return on capital. Free Market 101 says that if companies are making over the risk free interest rate, plus being compensated for risk, other companies will get into the industry until the price stabilizes. Because that is not happening, by definition there is no competitive market here. The game is rigged. SO please quit screaming about a free or competitive market. In the oil industry it does not exist.
By Ann
June 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Liberals dismiss studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, claiming they are biased because the people promoting the studies are “anti-choice.”
For the same reason, no one should believe the Democrats’ “energy” policies.
Democrats couldn’t care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles.
Environmentalists are constantly clamoring for higher gas taxes as the cure-all to their insane global warming theory. Clinton proposed a 26-cent tax on gas. John Kerry said it should be 50 cents. Gore endorsed the Malthusian proposal of Paul and Anne Ehrlich in “The Population Explosion” that gas taxes be raised gradually to match prices in Europe and Japan.
The result is consumers now pay about 46 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes. That’s not including taxes paid directly to the government by the oil companies and passed onto consumers. As the inestimable economist John Lott has pointed out, in the past 25 years oil companies have paid more than three times in taxes what they have made in profits.
B. Hussein Obama’s response to soaring gas prices is to have the oil companies collect even more money from us at the pump, proposing a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies. “Corporate taxes” sound like taxes on rich people, but all they do is force corporations to collect taxes on behalf of the government.
Democrats have worked hard to ensure that Americans pay as much for gas as Europeans do. After a quarter-century of gas tax hikes, a ban on drilling for oil and a complete destruction of the nuclear power industry in America, I guess liberals can declare: Mission accomplished!
In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.”
What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, “You can’t eat your way out of being hungry!” “You can’t water your way out of drought!” “You can’t sleep your way out of tiredness!” “You can’t drink yourself out of dehydration!”
Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn’t going to increase the supply of oil?
It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan. Their plan is: the permanent twilight of the human race. It’s the only solution they can think of to deal with the beastly traffic on the LIE (Long Island Expressway).
How do liberals propose we acquire the energy required for the economic activity and production that results in light appearing when they flick a switch? The larger enterprise involved in producing that little miracle eludes them.
Liberals complain that – as B. Hussein Obama put it – there’s “no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road.”
This is as opposed to airplanes that run on woodchips, which should be up and running any moment now.
Moreover, what was going on five years ago? Why didn’t anyone propose drilling back then?
Say, you know what we need? We need a class of people paid to anticipate national crises and plan solutions in advance. It would be such an important job, the taxpayers would pay them salaries so they wouldn’t have to worry about making a living and could just sit around anticipating crises.
If only we had had such a group – let’s call them “elected representatives” – they could have proposed drilling five years ago!
But of course we do pay people to anticipate national problems and propose solutions. Some of them – we’ll call them Republicans – did anticipate high gas prices and propose solutions.
Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska’s barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill!
We’d be gushing oil now – except the Democrats stopped us from drilling.
Drilling on only 0.01 percent of ANWR’s 19 million acres was projected to produce about 10 billion barrels of oil. From all domestic sources combined, we currently produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year. To a layperson like myself, 10 billion barrels seems like a lot of oil.
The other party – plus John McCain – ferociously opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore or drilling anyplace else. Instead of Drill! Drill! Drill!, their motto could be: Kill! Kill! Kill!
They refuse to believe our abortion studies? I refuse to believe they care about Americans having to pay high gas prices.
Ann Coulter
By ThaMan
June 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Grelican - I bet the people around you hate to see you coming with your proselytizing. You are the greatest you’ve ever seen, I would imagine.
By Bosch
June 26, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
Lynn,
Please. It’s real convenient to blame the environmentalists and government regulations. Do you think the oil companies - for one second - would listen to, or even care about the environment, or what the greenies have to say, or their concerns? Do you think for one second oil companies give a rats a* about polar bears and ants? Or would let polar bears or ants get in the way of their monies? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Do you think for one second that the oil companies are even slightly concerned about any flimsy government regulation? Their biggest ally is the freaking President of the United States! Are you serious?
The oil companies haven’t drilled here because it isn’t a good return on their investment. The oil is too hard to get to, it’s easier to get it from the Middle East.
I find it interesting that McCain keeps on with the “drilling” mantra when it’s a known fact that our country will not benefit at all from drilling up and using our reserves.
I think McCain is pushing for drilling because he knows it’s the only way we’ll ever be able to pay off the Chinese.
By CommunistAJC
June 26, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
grelican, What ideas besides raising taxes, doing nothing and doing nothing have liberals proposed? The newly elected democrat congress has done nothing. No new ideas. Liberals are all for free speech as long as the speech in in agreement with their mindset. Liberals have given us welfare, baby killing and a long list of other garbage. Liberals sit in coffee shops and whine about the war and tell others what to do in their own homes. Liberals have created more problems. Liberals blame America for the worlds problems. Examples: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, John F. Kerry(who served in Vietnam in case you didnt know that), Hillary Clinton, Noam Chomsky, etc…
I’d like to know what liberals have done to help other people? Conservatives give their own money for charity and Liberals want others to give their own money to make them feel good.
Conservatives are happier people than liberals. It’s self-evident in Jays columns. Doom and gloom. We’re all gonna die cry cry cry.
By Abomi Nation
June 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
I don’t blame you at all Greg!
I too would ignore Bush and head back 20 years. Ronald Reagan! Lol.
Because life in the present is a conservative nightmare. Just today the Dow drops another 250 points. Oil is up over 3 dollars a barrel.
Pay no attention reality or Bush. Ronald Reagan he’s our man!
By CJ
June 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
“Make the oil companies uncap all those wells they closed off during the oil-bust of the eighties.”
Actually, it’s true that oil companies are not using 75 percent of the leases they have. But supply isn’t the problem.
Believe it or not, if we simply add transparency to oil speculation process, then the price of crude will fall dramatically…likely back down to $65 to $75 per barrel (according to oil industry analysts testifying before the House Energy and Commerce committee).
The other source of pain is the fact that our dollar is so weak—a lesser reason for the high prices.
By rerservoirDAWG
June 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
Why not nationalize oil? Interesting question. I guess the answer would be because we are not a socialist country, you liberal fruit. It is not the federal goverment’s job to invade every aspect of our lives. This country was founded on a small federal goverment with larger state goverment. I, for one, would prefer to return to that ideaology.
By Copyleft
June 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
Excellently stated and defended, stuff, Grelican—as you can see from the ineffectual snipes the far-right nuts have been launching at you in return, without ever addressing the points you made.
By mmmmmm
June 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
Hey CJ,
Can the Oil companies even use the leases that they are not currently using or has that been placed out of reach by Congress? Just curious…
By jake O'brian
June 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
Great idea, while they are at it lets nationalize the press also. Then the government can tell you what to write, actually it would be better than the drivel you come with on your own
By mmmmmm
June 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Now Jake, your gonna hurt someone’s feelings talking like that….
By ThaMan
June 26, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Bosch - the correct spelling of your adjective to desribe the President is just like YOU would pronounce it: “freakin’”.
By Abomi Nation
June 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
CommunistAJC is right! Happy days are here again!!!
Oil is now up $4.30 a barrel today! $4.50 a gallon here we come. Woo Hoo!!!!
National debt soaring!!! Yea! lets go tax cuts!!!!!
Iraq war??? All fun and games. 3 billion a week, fun stuff. Loss of life, yippee! How about a wartime tax cut!!!! God yes!
Look how fun that falling dollar is!
Party!!!
Happy days!!!! We love you George Bush!!!
By Wild Bill Hiltner
June 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
“Oh Jay”, “Oh Jay” Bookman - to quote John Prine - you are what you are and you ain’t what you ain’t - even within your provocative “nationalize oil” teaser chased by a faux conversative free market endorsement, you misle the uninformed - when you write, “There would be no “hometown discount” to Americans for oil produced from American soil”, you venture into that valley of half truth that, all too often, serves as become homebase for the practice of your craft - lemme give you an example, true the price of a CONTRACT is no different (save for product characteristics)for doemstic and feren oil, but ask the Alaskans the production rebates are great and the multiplier effect of payroll does a great deal for the local economy or ask our friends in Texas how O/G royalties effect the state tax rate - me thinks that the whole truth betrays a far different economic REALITY than the simple no difference in price conclusion you draw - this happens so frequently in your work that I now feel it incumbent upon me to help you select your next topics - here is the list: 1) Bush diplomacy successfully defuses Ko-rean nuc-u-lar threat; 2) “New Politics” - Obama renegs on campaign finance reform by putting personal interest above good governance; 3) The two faces of Obama - primary promises v general election platform. G-d bless you, Jay.
By Algonquin J. Calhoun
June 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
Ann coulter, go eat something you anorexic, nazi b***!
By TopCat
June 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
Good thought subject Jay,
What I would like to Nationalized are the standards for gasoline consumption. This would alleviate 52 different cocktails to one, thus; easing tensions on overburdened refineries where you may have a glut in Nevada but a shortage in California and no way to ship without another pass through the refinery again……Simple math and physics could end this in an instant not to mention the fluctuation in pricing.By BS Aplenty
June 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
grelican @ 10:38
Your wordy list of partial truths sounds like it might convince some of the locals in the Congo, but I call “BS.”
The first design for a transistor is generally credited to Austrian-born Julius Lilienfield in 1925. He received a Canadian patent for a transistor, albeit, a non-working transistor. German Oskar Heil also patented a design for a different type of transistor in 1934. Americans William Shockley, John Bardeen, et. al, worked partially from one of Lilienfield’s working transistor designs and received the Nobel Prize in 1956 for their theoretical work that laid the foundation for transistor development. Shockley, Bardeen, Pearson, et al. worked at Bell Labs & Beckman Instruments - private companies.
The first working laser was invented by Theodore Maiman in 1960 at a private company called Hughes Research in California. His insight came from the 1956 graduate work of Gordon Gould at Columbia University. Other foreign contributions are also given credit for their theoretical contributions to laser development.
While the U.S. government had obvious uses for transistors and lasers, it’s clear they didn’t deveolop the theoretical basis behind any of the inventions you list nor did they design or build the first prototypes.
Now, when the government comes to the door of a company and asks them to build a laser, transistor or a switch for a nuclear device, it doesn’t mean they invented it - they’re just another customer at the door of capitalism.
By drill not tax
June 26, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Yes Grelican, I demand alternative fuels! Now what?
The democratic candidate’s solution is to tax the big bad oil companies for making too much money and give the money back to the average joe. The republican candidate wants to increase supplies while continuing to find ways to produce more fuel efficient vehicles.
By bobbylee
June 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
Regulate oil just like power companies. Those profits came out of working Americans pockets. The high cost of a barrel just made the taking of the money easier.
Just look what Exxon did.
They made 40 billion (40000 million) in profit, bought back their stock with 30+% and then gave it to the board and execs as options and bonus. They are stealing the company and Americans are paying for it. These execs don’t own the company, the stock holder’s do (not for long).
You can’t trust a businessman when the product is a necessity and there is a monopoly on the source. Just look at natural gas in GA after Sonny (I’ll let you vote on the flag) pushed to have it deregulated. #2 highest prices in the USA, competition my butt.
By Greg
June 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
Abomi Nation @11:29
It’s always good to remember Ronald Reagan - quintessential American patriot.
Now, you didn’t answer my question: What are Liberals all about?
By Bosch
June 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
ThaMan,
Thanks for clearing that up. Actually, though, I’m a big fan of Battlestar Galactica, so I’d pronounce it by saying “frakking.” Good show. You should watch it.
By Bosch
June 26, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
I love the smell of rhetoric in the lunch hour:
@12:31
“What are Liberals all about?”
By Thorne
June 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
I refer readers to the Sunday AJC which offers an excellent explaination of the current Oil/Gas debate. It illustrates the entire process despite what politicians and political parties spew. It’s simple Basic Economics (supply & demand). Suggest reading some of Thomas Sowell’s work: Basic Economics & Economic Facts and Fallacies to increase understanding and knowledge.
By Charles
June 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
This is Economics 101, folks!
PRICE IS DETERMINED BY THE DEMAND OF THE PRODUCT AND THE SUPPLY AVAILABLE
If the supply available is greater the price of the product drops. If the amount of the product drops and it is available locally the costs of transporting it are reduced. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out - but it takes an educated voter to realize the Democratic Party leaders (Socialists) want to weaken the United States because they think we shouldn’t be the only ‘superpower’ nation. Anything that will keep their agenda from going forward (like energy independence) will be fought with their false views (i.e. Global Warming, radical Islam not being a threat, etc.) of the world.
By AL
June 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
Hey GTTIM Oil company profit margin is like 1%. That’s economics 101. That’s why nobody else gets into the business. It cost billions annually to operate. Business 101. If we regulated insurance companies and software companies who’s profit margins are much higher like the government wants to regulate oil company profits. The regulation of profit would increase government revenue. After all it’s their money RIGHT? Civics 101.
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this
For all of the “conservatives” on this blog: Please post ANY information you can find that SUBSTANTIATES your claim that more drilling will lower oil prices to any significant degree. HINT: name-calling doesn’t count.
In the meantime, please see my posts at 10:04 & 10:23. The information in those posts was produced by the Bush adminstration’s own EIA. Why would they lie? Oh, wait! They were infiltrated by some commie, pinko, tree-hugging, PETA libruls. They snuck in right under “W’s” nose.
By bobbylee
June 26, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
Maybe the city of Atlanta should charge $200 a month for residential water, after all its a free market -supply and demand — where else would the get water ? It would be easy money.
By BS Aplenty
June 26, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
Some interesting tidbits about William Shockley. He had his viewpoint…
Late in his life, Shockley became intensely interested in questions of race, intelligence and eugenics. He thought this work was important to the genetic future of the human species, and came to describe it as the most important work of his career, even though expressing such politically unpopular views risked damaging his reputation. When asked why he seemed to take positions associated with both the political right and left, Shockley explained that his goal was “the application of scientific ingenuity to the solution of human problems.”
Shockley believed that the higher rate of reproduction among the less intelligent was having a dysgenic effect, and that a drop in average intelligence would ultimately lead to a decline in civilization. Shockley advocated that the scientific community should seriously investigate questions of heredity, intelligence and demographic trends, and suggest policy changes if he was proven right.
Although Shockley was concerned about both black and white dysgenic effects, he found the situation among blacks more disastrous. While unskilled whites had 3.7 children on average versus an average of 2.3 children for skilled whites, Shockley found from the 1970 Census Bureau reports that unskilled blacks had 5.4 children versus 1.9 for the skilled blacks. Shockley reasoned that because intelligence (like most traits) is inherited, the black population would, over time, become much less intelligent countering all the gains that had been made by the Civil Rights movement. Shockley’s published writings and lectures to scientific organizations on this topic, such as the National Academy of Sciences, were partly based on the research of Berkeley psychologist Arthur Jensen, Cyril Burt and H. J. Eysenck. Shockley also proposed that individuals with IQs below 100 be paid to undergo voluntary sterilization.
He donated sperm to the Repository for Germinal Choice, a sperm bank founded by Robert Klark Graham in hopes of spreading humanity’s best genes. The bank, called by the media the “Nobel Prize sperm bank,” claimed to have three Nobel Prize-winning donors, though Shockley was the only one to publicly acknowledge his donation to the sperm bank. However, Shockley’s views about the genetic superiority of whites over blacks brought the Repository for Germinal Choice notable negative publicity and discouraged other Nobel Prize winners from donating sperm.[16]
In 1981 he filed a libel suit against the Atlanta Constitution after a REPORTER called him a “Hitlerite” and compared his racial views to the Nazis. Shockley won the suit, but received only US$1 in damages.
Anybody know who that REPORTER was?
By Abomi Nation
June 26, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
I could care less what the “liberals are all about” Greg. I have my own views. I don’t worship Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. I could care less about the personalities. Ronald Reagan has almost no relevancy in today’s world.
George W Bush does.
By ItWasAliens
June 26, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
It was aliens that done it. I was there. The night that thing came down from above is a night I never will forget. It started out no different than any other night. The sun had gone down and the animals had come out. They was lined up at the bar howling at the local ladies that liked to frequent the joint — Joe’s joint. The big neon sign out front could be seen for miles in any direction, when it was workin’. “Eat at Joe’s” is what it flickered. Course very few locals actually ate at Joes ‘cause they all knew he couldn’t cook and if he did it wouldn’t be no more than a big pot of chili. Man, he made some hot chili. Anyways, I was tendin’ to the tables and waitin’ for closin’ time when I heard this loud rumblin’ that sounded like the Union-Pacific had done gone and tried to run their locomotives straight on the highway without tracks or somethin’ and saw a big blindin’ flash of light thru the diner’s big plate glass window. All of us there that night heard it and saw it. We was all out there in the parkin’ lot faster than a jack rabbit tryin’ to scedaddle from a pack of coyotes and we all saw it go down. It didn’t take us no time to stock the coolers and get them loaded on the trucks and we was off. Heck, we didn’t even think about turnin’ on the headlights with that big glow comin’ from just the other side of the Devil’s Tower. Anyway, that’s how it all began. You know, the transistor and the laser and silly putty. It’s the darndest thing though. You would think that such an advanced civilization would have some sort of fancy power source and not need to go messin’ with our energizer bunnies, wouldn’t you.
By ThaMan
June 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this
Algonquin J Calhoun - you have misspelled your description of Ann Coulter. You only used three asterisks and an exclamation. That would translate to “bitc!”. You should also capitalize “Nazi”. Pull yourself together!
By Bosch
June 26, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
BS Aplenty,
Did you write that yourself on the Wikipedia file on Shockley? Good stuff.
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
The Holy Grail in the renewable energy sector has been to create a clean, green process which uses only light, water and air to create fuel. Valcent’s HDVB algae-to-biofuel technology mass produces algae, vegetable oil which is suitable for refining into a cost-effective, non-polluting biodiesel. The algae derived fuel will be an energy efficient replacement for fossil fuels and can be used in any diesel powered vehicle or machinery. In addition, 90% by weight of the algae is captured carbon dioxide, which is “sequestered” by this process and so contributes significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Valcent has commissioned the world’s first commercial-scale bioreactor pilot project at its test facility in El Paso, Texas.
What’s your solution? Watch the video to the VERY END for a startling revelation.
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
Where on Earth is Redneck Convert when we need him. RC please take break from deliverin’ that beer and check in. Heaven knows this blog needs you today!
By steve
June 26, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
If we are going to sit back and let the tree huggers dictate where when and how we are to supply our energy needs the price for a barrel of oil has not reached its peak,
By Fix-It
June 26, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
Hey, Soothsayer, here is the one and only reason that we need to drill here and drill now. So we will stop giving money to people who what to kill us. That should be sufficient, but encase you need more reasons, how about a lot more of our dollars stay here in our economy. But wait there is more, if you drill here drill now the OPEC nations will drop their price because when it gets under about $100 a barrel it would not be economical for us to drill.
By Fix-It
June 26, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
All you bonehead liberals keep yelling about the cost of the war. What is costing us 3 times more than the cost of the war, and more dead Americans that the war has cost us? And why do democrats just walk away from this issue, why aren’t the liberals screaming bloody murder about the cost of ILLIGAL IMMIGRATION!
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
steve @ 1:15
PART of your post is correct: the price for a barrel HAS NOT reached its peak. In fact, we are in the EARLY STAGES of demand for oil exceeding demand.
World production of oil has remained static at 85 million barrels/day for the last three years. Wait until, as many experts predict, that production starts to decline. As they say, YOU AIN’T SEEN NOTHIN’ YET!
I want you to remember one thing: THE WORLD WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL—IT WILL JUST BE TOO EXPENSIVE TO USE.
By Peaches
June 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Since I own stock in Exxon, I assume that you are going to pay me the full market value for my stock when one of you democrats steals the company from it’s lawful owners? I assume that you will also pay me when you have to give it back because the government screwed it up so badly that there is a near revolution. I didn’t think so.
By ann
June 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
What did you have in mind Algonquin?
By Greg
June 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Bosch @ 11:25
What are Liberals all about?
By SUKG
June 26, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
JAY - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW CHINA AND THE US PAY THE SAME AMOUNT FOR OIL BUT THE CHINESE PAY $1.50 AT THE PUMP WHILE WE PAY $4+? IT IS NOT NATIONALIZATION OR SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
Fix-it @ 1:18:
We are in total agreement on your points 1) and 2). I disagree with your presumption in point 3). Can you offer any substantive proof that will happen?
Please see my post at 12:49. So far I have not had any takers.
And, really, do you have to resort to name-calling? It reflects poorly on you.
By George Washington
June 26, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
I cannot imagine a GS-nothing running an oil refinery: “Today is hispanic awareness week, there will be a mandatory meeting in the auditorium from 9-11 to discuss the contributions of Porta Ricans to the oil industry.” The refinery will be shut down during this meeting. Just substitute women, african americans, american indians, etc for Porta Ricans and you will see that the refinery will be shut down weekly to celebrate the non contributions of the lesser members of society…The feds lack enough chemical and petroleum engineer to even begin to manage contracting out this operation in a GOCO, a government owned, contractor operated plant. The engineer in the federal government are substandard, either too stupid, too dangerous, or too scared to work in a real refinier or drill ship….but you clowns do what you want, my money is on Total, Petrobras, and Schlumberger…beyond the reach of a windfall profits tax…
By Fred
June 26, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
George Washington,
The Government won’t actually be RUNNING the oil industry, that would require work. They will just regulate it into non existence.
By ItBeMine
June 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
Somethings gotta give. This thing has just gone crazy. It’s down to me now. There’s no one else left to set things right.
Dave…Dave…What are you doing, Dave. Dave…Dave…Talk to me, Dave.
Shut up, HAL. You had your chance. If you had just stuck with the program, this wouldn’t be happening. Now, it’s time for a change. Sweet dreams, HAL.
By CJ
June 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
“Hey CJ, Can the Oil companies even use the leases that they are not currently using or has that been placed out of reach by Congress? Just curious…”
They can use them, but they choose not to.
Again, the feds have leased over 90 million acres of land with known reserves to oil companies, but 68 millions acres (about 75 percent) remain untouched.
The “Dems-won’t-let-us-drill” argument is a con. I suggest, don’t be a sucker. If you want oil prices to come down, then write your Senators and Congresspersons and demand that they reign in the speculators (by adding transparency to the process). That’ll do the trick—instantly.
By Greg
June 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
grelican @ 11:09
Thanks for the response.
I would think that the “right” or “wrong” of a situation (which sounds somewhat religious in nature) could be very subjective. But, I agree that our “moral compass” often highlights areas of injustice.
By JAY BOOKMAN
June 26, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
To SUKG:
Pretty simple. The Chinese government buys oil from around the world at the global price, now roughly $135 a barrel.
It then sells that oil to its people at a price far below its real cost. In other words, gasoline consumption is highly subsidized in China and other countries as well, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.
That’s part of the reason why gasoline consumption has risen so quickly in China — consumers pay far less than its real price, so they use a lot more of it.
By Josh
June 26, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
Why not change the name of this country to United States of Socialist America, you dumb**?!!!!
By Soothsayer
June 26, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
World Oil Production Declined in May
Kinda makes you think, huh?
By JustAMatterofTime
June 26, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
Thanks to advances in cloning technology, it’s truly just a matter of time. We have successfully hatched over 1000 Raptor eggs, 5000 Brontosaurus eggs…
YOU DID WHAT? YOU IDIOT! Where are they. We’re too late. It’s all over.
But…You said we needed more oil.
By DoYouDeliver
June 26, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
Hello. Hello. Is there someone there that speaks English. I SAID ENGLISH. Yes. Thank You.
Elevator music….
Yes. Is this the Chinese Embassy. Yes. I would like to purchase some gasoline…Yes, it’s for personal use…
Do you deliver?
By mmmmmm
June 26, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
CJ- your “write your Senators and Congressmen” comment is great advice. I do occasionally email them. Now is a good time!
By Wild Bill Hiltner
June 26, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
Abomi Nation - thank G-d that George W. Bush is relevant in today’s world. Nuc-u-lar Korea - shut down; the Libyan terror machine - shut down; the homocidal, genocidal maniac Saddam Hussein - shut down; barbarous Al Qaeda - on the ropes. A vibrant, growing economy that lifted all boats, that is until two years of a do nothing Democrat Congress ruined everything. Moreover, W has lead our copuntry with so much honor and integrity that France and Germany elected leaders cut from them same cloth and that the whole of Europe has come to realize that his stance toward Iran has been correct. Viva W.
By Wild Bill Hiltner
June 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
Abomi Nation - thank G-d that George W. Bush is relevant in today’s world. Nuc-u-lar Korea - shut down; the Libyan terror machine - shut down; the homocidal, genocidal maniac Saddam Hussein - shut down; barbarous Al Qaeda - on the ropes. A vibrant, growing economy that lifted all boats, that is until two years of a do nothing Democrat Congress ruined everything. Moreover, W has lead our copuntry with so much honor and integrity that France and Germany elected leaders cut from them same cloth and that the whole of Europe has come to realize that his stance toward Iran has been correct. Viva W.
By Bosch
June 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
I find it hilarious that wingnuts blame the oil crisis on tree huggers and not the oil companies.
Think about this for just one minute - who do you think has more money and influence in this country?
Oil barons or granola crunching tree hugging, sandal-wearing hippies (of which, I happen to be one of the latter - and let me tell ya’ I ain’t got much power or influence)?
If drilling was so important and necessary to the oil companies - then why didn’t they have these sanctions lifted when the Republicans had control of the Senate and House and White House?
Why weren’t the oil companies and Republicans demanding we start drilling say between 2000 and October of 2006?
Hmmmmm?
People are so blind.
By Greg
June 26, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
BS Aplenty @12:53
Yeah, that sounds like Wikipedia, kid. You’d better give a citation next time.
By the way, I’ve been called much worse that “Hitlerite” by some of my less-than-esteemed colleagues on this blog. Any chance I could sue ‘em? I could use a new coat of paint on the house…
By Me Again
June 26, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
Well said, Wild Bill…Don’t forget put more of our money back into our pockets that fueled the growth of the economy and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama will undo all of it within the first 100 days in office. Not to mention drive the price of oil even higher.
By Hillbilly Deluxe
June 26, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
I agree with Jay on his basic premise here. That being said I believe no business should get tax breaks. That gives one segment an advantage over another. Not exactly a free market approach.
One thing you have to remember about multi-national corporations though is that they are interested in their own self-interest. Their first loyalty isn’t to the U.S. or any other country.
By Me Again
June 26, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
The last word on nationalizing the oil companies-
If Maxine Waters is for it, I am against it.
By BS Aplenty
June 26, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
Greg @2:29
Roger on that citation - my bad.
You could try and sue some of these heathens but they’d probably skip town. Most of ‘em got back child-support payments they ain’t made.
Happy hunting.
By James Hovland
June 26, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
Jay misses or maybe skips a bit of important reality in his analysis. We pay a huge profit to fellow American that could be used as revenue to supplement the taxes we all so enjoy paying, or we could opt for lower prices or both. It’s our country. Nationalizing oil does not mean increasing production and waisting our resources, it is simply moving the industry profits from private hands to our government of the people. The main problem is that most people are scared of simple words like… “Communism” and “Socialism”. These are powerful words that the oil industry can use to keep all the profit in their hands where they like it. If we can vote to nationalize, we can vote on other aspects of our oil supply, if we don’t nationalize, Exxon and the rest have the only voice in the matter.
I like the idea of nationalized oil and socialized medicine because it takes the power out of the greedy private hands and puts it in public hands where we the people have a voice. Fear of socialism results in buying someone else a private jet instead of everyone paying less. There is money and power in this issue, and it is all being used to keep the people afraid of “government control”. A government of the people for the people and by the people. That the control you are all so scared of. It’s sad how easy people are emotionally manipulated.
By gttim
June 26, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
Hey GTTIM Oil company profit margin is like 1%
Hey Al, don’t be a complete idiot. GO to Yahoo Finance and look up Exxon’s annual numbers- since they are a publicly traded company, it is all available. In 2007 they returned 34% on capital. In 2006 it was just below that. In a true competitive market, that could never, ever happen. However, the game is rigged by the massive oil companies and the politicians they own. All that money has come out of the people’s pockets.
If Exxon only returned 1%, like you say, why would they be in the business? Their stock would plummet as everybody sold it off. They could make more profit at that point by buying government bonds.
You didn’t go to college, did you?
By George Washington
June 26, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
ha ha ha, oil is above 140 bucks a barrel and rising, rrrriiiiisssssiiiinnnnggggg…..
By goat herders
June 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
see what happens when you phuck with a bunch of goat herders?
gd america. you should have left the goat herders alone.
now everything is falling apart.
these goat herders will bleed every single one of you to death.
the chickens are coming home to roost.
it is all over. lord why? i can’t take it anymore.
first the tech bubble.
then mortgage.
the bulldogs choked again.
now oil crises.
and de damn stock market is tanking.
somebody put me out of my misery.
i can’t take it any more.
By Copyleft
June 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
Here is the one and only reason that we need to drill here and drill now. So we will stop giving money to people who what to kill us.
Fix-It: That would also be the reason to kick the oil habit entirely. I assume you support that, right?
By BoneHead
June 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this
We need to kick the oil habit, but that will not happen today or tomorrow. Everybody wants a magic bullet and there is not one out there, right now. But in the mean time drill here drill now, and work for that silver bullet. If we all switched to electric cars right now, we would consume vastly more oil to generate the power needed to power those cars, so again drill here drill now.
By JackLeg
June 26, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
CJ, I need a new connection, sounds like you have a connection for the chronic. If you think the dems won’t let me drill is fake, then try to drill, wait put that bong down CJ, never drill with a lighter in your hand. We need to listen to what the research from the oil companies have to say, not the dumacrats, they are not in the oil business. They are in the business of screwing the American public. The oil companies have surveyed the useless leases that the government let them explore, if they could make a profit in those areas they would drill. So tell me what company would turn down a profit?
By AL
June 26, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
gttim
DIRECT QUOTE:U.S NEWS&WORLD REPORT . The oil industry urges people to look beyond its profits to its profit margin: about 7.6 percent of revenues late last year. Well below many major industries.
Its called volume! College educated , just not brain-washed.
By Tim
June 26, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
Great idea!! Let the government run it since they are so great at running all of the other programs in years past - Social Security…great program that cost us way more than we ever anticpated (soon they’ll be paying out more than they receive) - Medicare and Medicade…great programs great program that cost us way more than we ever anticpated(soon they’ll be paying out more than they receive)…even getting a driver’s liscense is a breeze…when mine was up for renewal it only took 1.5 hours…the government sucks at running programs at every level…that idea is doomed for failure…it will great when they start rationing out gas and health care when they take it all over!!!
By Me Again
June 26, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
gttim
Al’s right. profit margin is lower than most industries…Return on Capital or Net Assets is a different metric not tied directly to profit but a return on the investment at an amoritized rate for capital expenditures. Any other MBA’s out there (besides me) want to weigh in and show gttim the way?
By Rob
June 26, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
James Hovland - I have on request of you (and anyone else in favor of socialized medicine) -
Please spend some time in ANY country that offers socialized medicine. Talk to their people, get to know how it works, then come back to the U.S. and tell me it’s still a good idea.
By George Washington
June 26, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this
Millions of mba’s will soon be unemployed and unemployable….heh heh ha ha….
By George Washington
June 26, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Xom has an automatic poison pill in their contracts to develope foreign oil fields and share the production with the host country: If xom is nationalized, the production sharing agreement ends, and the oil infrastructure reverts to the host country…..if ya don’t like, losers, then lump it…heh heh ha ha
By Carolina
June 26, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this
Folks productive oil drilling off our coast is +-10 years away. Think electric car with on board generator (fueled by gasoline or other renewable fuel). How often do car mfg retool, every 5 to 10 years. So far all we have to relie on is ethonal, which reduces our food products, and feed for chickens, pigs etc..
By George Washington
June 26, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
xom needs to prepare for a Mugubee type guv in the usa—- xom needs to move all its assets out of the usa into foreign subs that contractually go free if xom is nationalized….anything that cannot be moved should be sold or destroyed….scorched earth xom, scorched earth…let obama mugumbee expropriate the burnt remains….heh heh haw haw….
By death to MBAs
June 26, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
very little difference between the financial metrics of exxon and IBM
Net income as a percentage of total revenue is about 10%
return on capital is also about 10%
50% of exxon’s operating profit is taxed compare to about 30% for IBM.
Exxon is a beast.
you little buggers need to stop bothering the oil companies.
By George Washington
June 26, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Go Total, tot, or go home…
By James Hovland
June 26, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
Rob, I do not want anyone else’s “Socialized Medicine”, I want a unique American style system, where we are simply not paying a huge industrial sized profit. I understand that other system are not perfect, but I also understand how much of our money goes to politicians, lobbyists and media campaigns for the sole purpose of instilling that fear, and prejudice in people like you. I paid for your opinion, I thought I was buying health-care, but instead funded an anti-socialism media campaign. I also bought a few private jets and someone else’s yacht, I didn’t mean to, I thought I was just paying for my own health care, but I funded other people treatment, and paid for the people to deny my claims. Funny how things work when you put your money where you have no control over it.
Now Rob, why don’t you go to Canada and ask them who’s private jet they bought with their heath care dollars. Oh, wait,they paid taxes instead of a premium, I guess thats different, mostly because they get to vote on whether to buy the jet or not.
By George Washington
June 26, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this
Production is cratering in not one, but TWO major oil-exporting countries!
Mexico is our #3 source of imported oil — 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd), or 12.6% of our imports — and the decline in production from its super-giant Cantarell oil field can only be described as catastrophic.
Even as global demand for oil continued to explode last year, Mexico’s oil production fell 5.3% — and then fell faster in the first quarter of this year, by 7.8%.
And what’s worse, Mexico’s crude oil exports dropped even more sharply, down 12.5% to 1.49 million barrels per day in the first quarter!
Worst of all, Mexico’s production crisis is deepening: In April, Mexico’s oil output fell to a nine-year low of 2.8 million barrels a day, mostly because of a decline in the Cantarell field.
Think that’s scary? Consider this: At current rates of decline, Mexico will become a net oil importer by 2016, and maybe sooner, according to Mexico’s Energy Ministry!
And it’s not just Mexico. Venezuela, another big supplier of U.S. imported oil, is hemorrhaging oil production due to the slipshod management by its deluded president, Hugo Chavez.
Result: The combined net oil exports from Venezuela and Mexico to the U.S. dropped by 414,000 bpd in just five months recently: An astounding annual decline rate of 32% a year!
Heh Heh Ha Ha
By Rob
June 26, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this
James, I’ve spent time in Canada and a few other countries with socialized medicine. I know how it works there, and I know that those who can afford care often come to the U.S. and pay out-of-pocket.
If you think there is no corruption in socialized medicine, you are wrong. I have family in Greece who commonly have to bribe the doctor or hospital to be seen in a timely manner.
Check out this article -
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/ 2008/06/25/mri-ctreport.html
and this one -
http://www.rangelmd.com/index.php/ 2007/08/12/socialized-medicine-and-excessive- wait-times/
Oh, and each country I’ve seen has their own “unique (insert socialized medicine country here) system” and none that I’ve seen thus far have worked anywhere near as well as our system.
Our system is not perfect by any means, but for those who choose to get health insurance, it’s the best I’ve seen. I hate it for those 45 million Americans who don’t have coverage, but many are not because they can’t get it, it’s because the choose not to have it. I don’t know the numbers exactly, but something like half of that figure can afford insurance, but choose against it. Also included in that 45MM figure are about 12MM illegals.
By thogwummpy
June 26, 2008 6:18 PM | Link to this
Well, Jay…by having the government sieze the oil industry (that’s what nationalization IS Mr. Lefty) right off the bat…all those Americans with their nest eggs in oil stocks; oh…including pension plans of UNIONS; will be finanically shattered. The investment community would be in ruins. Y’know, if oil companies made a scant 1% profit margin (most international corporations run profit rates at 20-35%), they’d still post profits in the billions (run the numbers!) and STILL the class resentful liberal mindset would scream “they’re gouging! Y’all are hardwired, programmed to see everything as an infantile morality play…when systems simply operate they way they operate.
Moreover, do I want something as imperative as oil run by the compentence of the numbskulls who manage immigration? education? the DMV? Geez—-I wouldn’t trust Pelosi or Reid to manage a McDonalds franchise competently…let alone something as complex as the petrochemical industry!!! GOVERNMENT AIN’T THE ANSWER, no matter what Marxists blather. One of the dirty secrets Mr. Book-boy leaves out, is that oil companies are ENERGY companies…and the cutting edge research into alternative fuels, is being led by them. Who do you think funds university grants and research institutions investigating viable alternatives? It’s not Code Pink, buddy…it’s Big Oil!
By James Hovland
June 26, 2008 6:31 PM | Link to this
George Washington, I think you should look a little closer at the “deluded president, Hugo Chavez.”
Here is a good statement in the news about him regarding oil from May 1 2007…
“Chávez has said he hopes to radically make over Venezuela, saying big changes are needed to make sure the poor benefit from the country’s wealth and not just the elite.
Using the country’s burgeoning revenue from high oil prices, he is financing widespread programs for the poor. He has built new clinics, refurbished state hospitals and sent thousands of doctors to live in poor neighborhoods to provide free medical care.”
George, our oil money, our resources are not doing anything like that. What are we as Americans, getting out of our deluded president in terms of social programs being paid for by our nations oil? Nothing, because we are afraid of “Socialism”. I mean honestly people, if we as a nation profit from our oil, the Soviets will surely take over. Right? The only thing we have to fear is…
By the Carnivore
June 26, 2008 6:53 PM | Link to this
Man, there are some dumb people out there. And they have computers. And they post on this board.
The oil problem is far beyond the capacity of any president to fix. It isn’t Bush’s fault, or Clinton’s, and it won’t be McCain’s or Obama’s fault either.
The price of oil is going to go far, far higher than anything you can imagine in the next ten years (like $400-600 a barrel, or more). This will drive innovation that will get us completely off the oil standard, but the country is going to have to make a major shift in how it operates.
By James Hovland
June 26, 2008 7:05 PM | Link to this
Rob, and those who can not afford it in Canada, get care anyway, simply because thats how they voted. And like I said Rob, I want an American system, not one from Greece or Canada, or anywhere else. If we have such a good system as you imply, we can simply copy it and leave out the profits, and it would of course be even better. We can even employ all of the same people. I happen to be an American, and believe that as a government of the people, we have the power to make our system exactly what we want. You like what we have. Do you like the bloated cost that the profit margin, the political contribution, the lobbyist etc… are costing you? Do you like paying someone to decide if you get care or not. Do you understand that you pay someone who gets bonuses for denying your claims. Or does none of this matter because Greece has corrupt doctors, and you can’t believe that America could do better?
My America is smarter, and far more powerful that the fear based world you seem to live in. My government, a government of the people for the people and by the people is flexible and easy to manage when you understand where corruption takes root. You repeat the same views as seen on TV, sponsored by oil, insurance, etc. When I pay for my health care or gas, I fund your opinion.
By Rob
June 26, 2008 8:12 PM | Link to this
James, I guess I’ve just been around long enough to know that it’s highly unlikely we will ever get the corruption out of government, that we cannot believe anything any elected official says, and that just by removing the profit margin, all our problems will be solved.
The issue of profits pales in comparison to what it costs the insured to pay for the care of those who are not.
There is no health care crisis for the uninsured. The crisis is for the insured, because our rates keep going up to cover those who get care and don’t pay for it.
In the U.S., no one is turned away from from a hospital when the need care. Services are provided regardless of the patients ability to pay. The cost of that care gets shifted to you and me. As I said, for the uninsured, there is no crisis.
A couple of changes in health care I would love to see -
1) Eliminate an insurance company’s ability to exclude pre-existing conditions.
2) Eliminate their ability to pick and choose who they want to cover (put all members into categories, and base the rate on that, not the individual’s health history).
By Borat Obama
June 26, 2008 8:14 PM | Link to this
Wow, something I actually agree with Jay on. Good going!
By James Hovland
June 26, 2008 9:40 PM | Link to this
Rob… I have to contest this statement of yours.
“The crisis is for the insured, because our rates keep going up to cover those who get care and don’t pay for it.”
You and I pay the insurance companies, and they pay for our care. If they see fit. The people without insurance are paid for by the government, not the insurance companies, and therefore do not effect our rates like you have assumed. The fact is, just like in Socialized Medicine, the people that get care without insurance are paid for through our tax dollars. We are paying for the uninsured, just not with our health-care dollars, that money comes from taxes.
The changes you would like to see would be nice, but unlikely in our current system. In our current system the insurance industry has far too much power to influence our politics and public opinion. Every change we could hope for will be an uphill battle as long as there is a profit to be made by ignoring our wishes. These companies are in this for a profit, not for your health, they really don’t care about your health, they are mostly interested in whether or not you will be an asset or a liability. If you have a pre-existing condition, you are a liability, and they don’t want to insure you. In a profit based system, profit is the priority. To solve the problems we have, we need to be free to make the changes without the multi-billion dollar media campaigns fighting against us. That is where the rate hikes come from, not the uninsured people, but the increasingly expensive media and lobbying campaigns to keep insurance companies in business and making a profit.
I understand you have been around long enough to be a bit jaded by all the corruption, but have you failed to notice that the world has changed drastically? I don’t know where you live, but here we are, debating Socialized medicine and corruption, and it’s all here for anyone else who wants to read it. Democracy is rising again.
By Rob
June 26, 2008 10:09 PM | Link to this
James,
There is no “magic pot” of money the government uses to pay for the services hospitals provide to the uninsured. It’s up to the hospitals to “cost shift” those expenses to those that pay. Hence the reason why Tylenol cost $6 per pill in the hospital, and a one-day stay in a regular hospital room is $7,000.
Most hospitals have enough paying patients to cover indigents. Grady, on the other hand, does not, and that’s why that hospital consistently runs short of operating capital, even though they get millions in tax revenues from city, county and state grants.
By James Hovland
June 26, 2008 11:39 PM | Link to this
Come on Rob… “There is no “magic pot” of money “…
“millions in tax revenues from city, county and state grants.”
By John
June 30, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Did someone kidnap and brainwash Jay Bookman? Finally, he shows an awareness of such basic economic principals as supply vs demand and “moral hazard”. Let’s see if he applies this new found knowledge to other topics he tackles.
By james freeman
June 30, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
Oil in ANWAR is worht $1.5 TRILLION. It would not be thet difficult to lease the land in exchange for a cut of the profit: the US owns the land after all. If the country charged half of the wholesale cost of the oil to let a company drill there, the company would still make mucho bucks. And we would have 700-800 billion added to the treasury. Oh yea, that would be 1.5 TRILLION less the Arabs would have to buy weapons to kill infadels (us). A no-brainer…..
By Barry
June 30, 2008 10:14 PM | Link to this
Third parties get DemocRATs elected. See what Ross Perot’s Reform party did for America, we got 8 years of Bill Clinton and we’ve had to endure 12 years of Hillary Clinton. Third party? No thanks, been there done that…and I, for one, regret it.
By Skwerl
July 1, 2008 11:46 PM | Link to this
Drilling is an exellent idea along with gas tax cuts and less “enviromental” worry. Do some people think that the oil companies do not care about an oil spill or leak? I am for conservation but when you go to the extremism that is too far. I mean sure there should be limits to what you can cut down or drill or mess up ,but when you take it to the extreme to “zero-tolerence” policies it seems to be that it becomes anti-industry. Drilling now will help the economy because the people will know that oil is on the way and become less worried and panicked. Worried people on the news cause hypes and panicks. If the news says the gas stations are going to run out of gas then everyone is going to try to get some before it is gone. They make the prediction come true. How does taxing the oil companies make oil cheaper? Explain that to me someone. The three most regulated industries are, Banks, Oil, and Airlines. Oil fuels the airlines and the airlines bring in buisness through cargo and investors. The banks earn money from the investors through investments into their company and taking out loans. This ties into the individual consumer who stores money in a bank and earns interest on it. Then they live and work doing things for another company which uses airlines for product and buisness transportation and uses oil for its trucks or products. Oil is the base for economies. It negatively affects the economy when you punish oil companies or airlines or banks through taxes for earning profits. That all falls upon the consumer who has to pay more for some object to help pay for a companys taxes. No company can absorb costs like that without getting enough revenue to pay for it. Alternative energy is a good idea. But why force companies to invest in it. The only “alternative/green energy sources” with a great return are hydropower, nuclear power, and electric power(Cars, boats, etc.). What about building coal to oil plants or refineries or nuclear power plants. We aren’t allowed. Why? Because extreme enviromentalists have put so many restrictions on building one its almost impossible. So what do we do. Drill. Develope. Build. Mine. Create. Innovate.