Taking Aim at Oil's Riches

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Isnt that what usually transpires when a crime has been committed? If it hasnt been recognized by the courts as a crime yet, that doesnt mean its not one. Our legal system is living, breathing, growing entity. NOTE: I am not conceding that its not a crime, yet. I am not a lawyer, I would have to do some homework. The answer may even be in Osborns post. I have only read half of it, so far )I am doing some household chores in between readings) Have a good weekend brien.

Thanks gr8. I did. Was in Chicago on Friday through Sunday. Great time to be there with the Series win and all.

A crime? I don't know about that either. It sounds so, so, socialistic, I think is the word I am looking for here, to call earning a profit in a Capitalistic society, a "crime." Who says how much is too much profit. And a small p.o.i., only 25% of Exxon Mobils profits are earned in the US. What do we do about the other 75% of the profits earned abroad? Should we begin to tax Corporate earnings based upon how much they earn on a increasing scale? We can do that, and there are politicians in DC already calling for "windfall profits taxes. They don't work, and here is why.

It only drives the corporations offshore to earn their profits in other markets where the US can't tax them. As far as oil, it will push the oil companies to divert more oil to where they are less taxed and thereby create a tighter supply here in the US. It is counter productive. It is the same idea as taxing success in the labor market.

The tax system increases the percentage of taxes on citizens that work hard and earn extra money. This penalizes hard work and success. It is counter productive. Who in their right mind wants to work 70 hours a week and lose most of those earnings to taxes? It makes no sense to me.

I already understand that oil will go to $100 per barrel. Get ready for the shock because it is coming. What should we do, force the oil compapnies to sell in foriegn markets before they sell here? Do we tax them so much so as to force them from being a US Corporation and lose all the revenue they produce? There have to be better answers than the more simple and immediate ones that blame oil companies for being the bad guy here.

Perhaps the US government can offer incentives that any amount of their profits used for research and development into conservation not be taxed at all? Perhaps the politicians could get some nerve and ELIMINATE the fuel tax on both the federal and state levels. This would immediately reduce the price of fuel substanially, and go a long way to support the credibility of the where the politician's real loyalty lies. (Opps, bad choice of words)

This big oil game is not a cut and dried simple "it's all your fault" type of situation. It is a complex issue that needs to be aired out in the open by all concerned in the matter. It is the responsiblity of the government to be honest here. Politicians should be forthright with honest answers and demonstrate their willingness to tackle the problem of oil supplies from a non partisian and meaningful approach that places the needs of the citizens first and their own interest last. Politicians have a responsibility to their constituents to represent them honestly in a society where the economy depends upon capitalism to promote the general welfare of the citizens and their organizations.

We must hold elected representatives feet to the fire first. The citizens of the US must search for answers that do not penalize success and transfer wealth from the so called "rich" to the so called "poor". Capitalism has made this nation great and will continue to do so as long as the citizens are not hoodwinked by rhetoric and phony dishonest politicians that take their campaign contributions form Corporate America with one hand and stab them in the back with the other hand. And worse, pretend to be on the side of the "little man" while taking large campaign contributions from corporations while paying lip service and lying to their constiuents. When the politicians get honest, then I will listen to them and consider their solutions, but untill then, they can whistle in the wind before I will extend them one ounce of credibility in situations like the American economy and the oil supplies in the American market today.

[Zeebadee]

I think your phoney "capitalism" example about oil is garbage. There's very little capitalism involved here, the deck is stacked against the average citizen right from the beginning. . The oil that the big companies are pumping is coming from leases on federal lands, therefore that oil really belongs to all of us. The oil company calculates the risks of drilling, costs of refining and doing business, a fair profit margin, money for extras like political contributions, and they make their bid for these leases. When the oil starts to flow, they raise their selling price. The citizen gets screwed, first because the oil that the company originally bid on is now underpriced to that company, and second because the citizen has to spend more to buy that underpriced oil. When the price of gas goes up, we are immediately charged the new price, however, the original price of the federal land lease doesn't go up for the life of that lease. This isn't real capitalism, it's cheating.

[brien]

Quote by: Zeebadee I think your phoney "capitalism" example about oil is garbage. There's very little capitalism involved here, the deck is stacked against the average citizen right from the beginning. . The oil that the big companies are pumping is coming from leases on federal lands, therefore that oil really belongs to all of us. The oil company calculates the risks of drilling, costs of refining and doing business, a fair profit margin, money for extras like political contributions, and they make their bid for these leases. When the oil starts to flow, they raise their selling price. The citizen gets screwed, first because the oil that the company originally bid on is now underpriced to that company, and second because the citizen has to spend more to buy that underpriced oil. When the price of gas goes up, we are immediately charged the new price, however, the original price of the federal land lease doesn't go up for the life of that lease. This isn't real capitalism, it's cheating.

I think you "citizen gets screwed" is SOCIALISTIC GARBAGE. You have been hoodwinked by politicians who take campaign contributions from oil companies and then PANDER to your fears and insecurities. If you are serious about the change you desire, then go to the politicians that YOU elect and change them first. Then come back with a credible argument that is supported by politicians in a government that is honest and forthright about doing something to change what you feel is wrong. Until then, perhaps you think that Socialism is a better answer than Capitalism to support the economy in this country. This is your right, but at least admit it. I don't think you will find great support for it in our government.

75% of Exxon Mobils revenue is derived from overseas sales. What are you going to do, tax sales on Chinese consumption. Just who do you think the US government is anyway, the World's tax man? So you think it is fair to put forth the argument that Exxon Mobil is "gouging" the Americans only? Why aren't the other 75% of the world's buyers complaining?

Your argument smells of revenge, and perhaps even jealousy, that oil companies are making a profit on their investment in the WORLD oil business. Get you head out of your myopic view of America and see the big picture. Oil participates in a world market in which America is only one player. Because America consumes more oil on a daily basis than any other country in the world is not the FAULT of big oil.

If we follow your argument's logic and compare it to food, then it would go as such: America is a producer of wheat in the world. American farmers sell their wheat to the highest bidder. There is great demand for wheat consumption in Russia. The Russians are willing to pay $500 per ton and the Americans have been used to paying $400 per ton. So when the farmers sell their wheat for the $500 per ton, they are gouging the Americans because Americans have been paying $400 per ton in previous years. Furthermore, since the seeds that grow the wheat are "natural" they must be a natural resource. Therefore, they belong to everyone, and therefore, so does the wheat. This is COMMUNISM.

Extrapolation of your argument also means the Government should penalize the wheat farmers by confisgating their profits because they have sold their wheat to the highest bidder. This is ANTI CAPITALISTIC. In fact, is SOCIALISTIC because it transfers the wealth of the farmer to the consumer through government controls. It penalizes success in the economy and that is ANTI CAPITALISTIC.

World markets involved in supply and demand are fluid markets and subject to price fluctuaions. Prices can go down as easily as they can rise. According to your logic, if the price of oil bottoms out, then we should institute price supports in order to stabilize the price of oil from dropping under a certain price. After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What is the differece if the price rises or drops? If you penalize the oil company for making excess profits, you better be ready to subsidize them if the price falls below the cost to bring it to market. This is SOCIALISM.

So if you are a Socialist, please say so. It isn't the end of the world, but it isn't America either.

And if you think that oil exploration, discovery, drilling, refining and bringing to market from leased land belongs to us all, then you are definitely proposing a COMMUNIST point of view. I don't care if it is water, coal, oil or LNG, if a comapny leases the land and pays for all of the costs involved in bringing that resource to market, it is their oil, LNG, water or coal. If you lease land, build a house, and drill a well for water, can anyone come on your property and take your water because it belongs to everyone? Your point of view is NOT based upon private enterprise or private property which is the bedrock of this country and its economy. It is what was practiced in the USSR and FAILED. It is COMMUNISM.

Do some research on Governor Huey Long of Louisiana in the 30's. He is your man. However, he was assasinated by a Physician who apparently knew what he was up to in Louisiana in the 30's. Also research Eugene Debbs. Try Karl Marx as well. These guys are your men with the solutions you propose here. And while you are at it, please read Animal Farm because according to the pigs in that book, everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Look, I don't care if you are a Socialist, or a Communist, but what you are advocating fits within the parameters of their ideology, so please at least understand what you are advocating, so you can live with it. What's the saying: Be careful what you wish for, because you just may get it? :)

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien So you think it is fair to put forth the argument that Exxon Mobil is "gouging" the Americans only? Why aren't the other 75% of the world's buyers complaining?

Actually, I think it's fair to offer any argument I choose. Perhaps the other 75% of the world's buyer aren't complaining because they aren't oil producers. Like I said before, oil companies buy public land leases based on current prices, then jack up the price we pay. The lease price they pay, however, remains at the original price.

Quote by: brien Furthermore, since the seeds that grow the wheat are "natural" they must be a natural resource. Therefore, they belong to everyone, and therefore, so does the wheat. This is COMMUNISM.

The farmer plants his seed on his land and grows and harvests his crop. If you think this is the same as someone pumping oil out of public land, I disagree.

Quote by: brien Extrapolation of your argument also means the Government should penalize the wheat farmers by confisgating their profits because they have sold their wheat to the highest bidder.

It means nothing of the sort.

Quote by: brien If you penalize the oil company for making excess profits, you better be ready to subsidize them if the price falls below the cost to bring it to market.

I don't want to penalize the oil companies, I just want them to pay the citizens an honest price for the oil they pump off public lands. If they own the land they are pumping oil from, I don't care what they charge for it.

Quote by: brien And if you think that oil exploration, discovery, drilling, refining and bringing to market from leased land belongs to us all, then you are definitely proposing a COMMUNIST point of view.

I never said that, did I?? I said that the oil on public land belongs to all of us, and, until any of the actions you outlined are undertaken, it does.

The current situation with oil is just about the reverse of the electric power controversy we had in California. Here the power companies were forced to buy power at floating rates, but were allowed to charge their customers only a fixed rate for that power. As rates went up, the stockholders in the power companies were screwed. The oil companies buy public land leases at fixed rates, but are allowed to charge their customers whatever they want. As rates go up, the citizens get screwed. I have only to refer to the huge profits that the oil companies are making for proof. If you think that's fair and equitable, I disagree. That does not, however, make me a "socialist" or "communist"

[brien]

Quote by: Zeebadee Actually, I think it's fair to offer any argument I choose. Perhaps the other 75% of the world's buyer aren't complaining because they aren't oil producers. Like I said before, oil companies buy public land leases based on current prices, then jack up the price we pay. The lease price they pay, however, remains at the original price. The farmer plants his seed on his land and grows and harvests his crop. If you think this is the same as someone pumping oil out of public land, I disagree. It means nothing of the sort. . The current situation with oil is just about the reverse of the electric power controversy we had in California. Here the power companies were forced to buy power at floating rates, but were allowed to charge their customers only a fixed rate for that power. As rates went up, the stockholders in the power companies were screwed. The oil companies buy public land leases at fixed rates, but are allowed to charge their customers whatever they want. As rates go up, the citizens get screwed. I have only to refer to the huge profits that the oil companies are making for proof. If you think that's fair and equitable, I disagree. That does not, however, make me a "socialist" or "communist"

Quote by: Zeebadee
Actually, I think it's fair to offer any argument I choose. Perhaps the other 75% of the world's buyer aren't complaining because they aren't oil producers. Like I said before, oil companies buy public land leases based on current prices, then jack up the price we pay. The lease price they pay, however, remains at the original price.

The farmer plants his seed on his land and grows and harvests his crop. If you think this is the same as someone pumping oil out of public land, I disagree



I say: Yes I invite you to advance any argument you choose. DIdn't mean you couldn't. But your logic is flawed. BP is producing petroleum out of the North Sea and I don't hear the British complaining. Do you? And their oil is about $5.00 per gallon.

You may disagree about the analogy of the farmer and the seeds but it is the same argument you advance in your reply.

You are confused about "public land". Once it is leased it is no longer "public land". If you lease a home , even on leased land, it is NOT public land. It is now the lessees land. Check the legals on this and I think you will find once a "lessor" leases land to a "lessee" the lessor no longer has the right to the property until the lease if up. Now, there can be all sorts of agreements in leases, and they can be tailored to any style, but I think you will find that once the government,(ie we the people) lease land to the oil companies, it is their right to profit from anything they can produce from that land.. If you lease a store, and you fix it up and attract business, can the lessor come in and confisgate your profits from your work in that store because he leased that storefront to you and you used the store's water( a resource in that store) to profit in his business? NO

If a farmers leases land from the government, and produces wheat from that farm, does the government own that wheat. Surely not. The seeds he used to grow the wheat are a resource, according to your logic, and since the wheat is extracted from leased public lands, then by your logic, the wheat belongs to the people. This is your logic.


You wrote: I don't want to penalize the oil companies, I just want them to pay the citizens an honest price for the oil they pump off public lands. If they own the land they are pumping oil from, I don't care what they charge for it.

I say: They have already paid for the oil in the lease. You want them to pay again? Not in the contract my friend.



You wrote: I never said that, did I?? I said that the oil on public land belongs to all of us, and, until any of the actions you outlined are undertaken, it does.

I say: That oil belongs to whomever extracts it from the land they leased in a legally binding agreement. This is contained in the lease. You can''t change the lease after the oil is extracted. You seem to conveinetly lose the logic of my comparison to water extracted upon leased land by an idividual or corporation.

I didn't call you a socialist or a communist. I said what you write and what you seem to propose are socialist and communist ideas. There is a difference.

I don't want to get into things happening in California. Let's stick on topic with oil. You advance price controls as I showed you in your last post. This is a socialist practice and was tried in the Nixon Adminstration and FAILED. You don't address price controls as I pointed out in my last post. If you want to tax "windfall profits" are you also willing to protect the oil company from the cost of production falling below the price paid?

You keep insisting that people are getting screwed but they are getting power, oil, LNG, water and other resources. They are paying the market price for these resources. You're saying that paying for something is "getting screwed" is not logical in a Capitalistic economy.

I advanced many rebuttals in my last post to show you how you ideas are ANTI CAPITALIST but you refuse to admit them. I take it by your ignoring them that you have no answer and thereby agree with my points.

Your arguments are couched in Socialism, and some even in Communism. I am not saying they are invalid ideologies, but rather they are not American Captialist ideolgy, and therefore can't be considered part of the solution to the position that America finds itself today in the world oil market. Furthermore, some of you ideas have been tried in the USSR and failed. Some Socialist ideas work in Europe but they are not meant for the American economy with its roots firmly and deeply grown in American economics. In the American Capitalist economic structure, you might want to advance ideas and solutons that are within the framework of that ideology. Otherwise, you are advocating solutions that are at odds with the social and economic structure of the US. Nothing wrong with this, but see it for what it is in your argument.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Zeebadee I never said that, did I?? I said that the oil on public land belongs to all of us, and, until any of the actions you outlined are undertaken, it does.

Then the actions transfer ownership to the company.... Despite the numerous times you've tried to explain how all this is public ownership, it isn't any more clear. Now you'e directly said it isn't public once it's out of the ground. I thought the seed argument was pretty good, but any natural resource, like water, seems equally equally valid.