|
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
how is nationalizing the commodity any different than nationalizing the industry? in both cases the government is controlling the distribution of the product. in any event, if the government is required to purchase all the oil produced there is no independent market for the product so a true market rate could never be established. furthermore, this proposal would actually increase the cost of gas because you are adding another party to the equation. |
It isn't nationalizing the industry because the means of production are not controlled by the government. The government would not control the means of distribution.
But you have mentioned something I didn't think of. If the government owns all the oil, then how can traders trade it on the market, and thus, how can there be a market price? I'm thinking the government could sell special oil securities backed by say a barrel of oil, and traders could trade that. If speculators start trading up the price unjustifiably, then the government could flood the market with these securities, and thus, drive the price down by diluting the holdings of the traders. But you know what? I think just the threat of that would drive prices down.
As for the premium for including an extra party to the "equation"..The state oil corporation wouldn't physically handle the oil, so no delay in the supply chain.
| quote: | | on to my bit: good for exxon shareholders. the company doesn't have an obligation to produce alternative energy and its stupid to think they do. exxon is not an alt energy company, so they would be less efficient at it than other companies. exxon pays more federal tax than almost any single entity. they do their part. it's not exxon's fault our government hasn't formulated a policy that would promote energy independence. people (exxon shareholders) have a right to make as much money as possible, as i'm sure you also believe. if they were producing gum you wouldn't give a shit. leave the emotions out of the argument. |
Listen, they can spend their profits however they want, and they are free to make even world record breaking profits. But if they are running commercials (in my opinion is corporation propaganda) putting up the impression that they are somehow innovators in alternative energy, that they investing heavily in alternative energy, and all this crap, WHEN THEY AREN'T, then I think there is a problem.
Personally, I think they want to use high oil prices to convince Congress of opening up more areas for them to drill.
The proposal I have, I think is a much better alternative than drilling more hydrocarbons, and adding yet still more greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere, NOT THE MENTION, continue our oil addiction even longer. It's like recommending to a heroine addict who is in withdrawal, that they shoot up more heroine!!
___________________
|