Taking Aim at Oil's Riches

[gr8fuldaniel]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...-home-business

Taking Aim at Oil's Riches Some want the industry to use its record profits to boost production, but many companies are cautious. Two senators back a consumer rebate. Los Angeles Times Business By Tom Petruno, Times Staff Writer Even for Big Oil, the numbers have never been as big as this. When major U.S. energy companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. announce their third-quarter earnings in the next few days, the results are certain to be staggering. Pumped up by soaring prices of oil, natural gas and gasoline in August and September, Exxon Mobil alone is expected to report quarterly profit of about $8.7 billion. That would be more than what such titans as Coca-Cola Co., Intel Corp. and Time Warner Inc. earn in an entire year. For the energy companies, the record results amount to an embarrassment of riches — an invitation for attack by foes and even by some traditional allies. "The question increasingly is going to be, what is the industry going to do with this money?" said Amy Jaffe, head of the James A. Baker Institute Energy Forum at Rice University in Houston. On Tuesday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called on the companies to spend more to build refineries and boost production to help "ease the pain" of high energy prices. "It's time to invest some of those profits," Hastert said at a news conference in Washington. With oil holding above the $60-a-barrel mark, double the level of two years ago, some Democrats in Congress have another idea: Slap the industry with a windfall-profit tax like the one imposed in 1980. <snip> Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) are pushing a bill that would essentially levy a tax surcharge on oil firms when oil's market price exceeds $40 a barrel. The money would be rebated to consumers. More....

IMHO
The operative paragraph:

"Pumped up by soaring prices of oil, natural gas and gasoline in August and September, Exxon Mobil alone is expected to report quarterly profit of about $8.7 billion. That would be more than what such titans as Coca-Cola Co., Intel Corp. and Time Warner Inc. earn in an entire year."

Who cares if Coca-Cola Co., Intel Corp. and Time Warner Inc. doubles or triples the price of their sugar water, Processors, and ISP? We can all live just fine without it. However, We have millions (billions actually) of people who depend on fuel to survive. The profit whores are legally (?) stealing from everybody because oil prices effect the price of every product.

Whaddya think?

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...-home-business IMHO The operative paragraph: "Pumped up by soaring prices of oil, natural gas and gasoline in August and September, Exxon Mobil alone is expected to report quarterly profit of about $8.7 billion. That would be more than what such titans as Coca-Cola Co., Intel Corp. and Time Warner Inc. earn in an entire year." Who cares if Coca-Cola Co., Intel Corp. and Time Warner Inc. doubles or triples the price of their sugar water, Processors, and ISP? We can all live just fine without it. However, We have millions (billions actually) of people who depend on fuel to survive. The profit whores are legally (?) stealing from everybody because oil prices effect the price of every product. Whaddya think?

There are several issues here to address. First is do we not live in a capitalistic economy?
Are the oil companies "allowed" to make a profit? Or are they only "allowed to make someone else''s definition of a "reasonable" profit? How did the United States get into a position that allows itself to be so dependent upon oil that when the price soars, they are hurt big time?

I remember one poster writing in another thread that oil was no different than other natural resources as air or water. And crude oil, being a resource, belongs to everyone. It reminded me of Huey Long, the Kingfish back in Louisiana in the 30's. Btw,he was assasinated. The poster also said the water on the planet belongs to everyone. So, I extrapolated that if I drill a well on leased land or property I own for the express right of extratcing the water, that may or may not be there, when and if it comes to the surface, it no longer belongs to me? I spend the money to lease or purchase the land, to drill the well and bring the water to the surface and it doesn't belong to me? Sounds very Communist in theory to me.

Back to "big oil." We must, as a Capitalistic society, recognize that "big oil" is in business to earn a profit. They, as capitalists, can sell their oil to the highest bidder in a world free market. What right do Americans have to demand that "big oil" sell their oil to the US consumer at a price lower than other world buyers?

Now steps in the US government and begins to enact laws to tax "big oil" produced here in the US. This will probably cause big oil will go somewhere that will not tax them as much, and the US will become worse off. You want to drive out the US oil producers, then tax the living hell out of them. Or the government could steal their money like they did from the cigarette companies. Some say the government, should raise taxes on "big oil" because they are making "obscene" profits. Whatever that is, I don't know. What I do know is the American government can ,and will, drive oil companies out of the US if they beging to jump on this "let's get em" band wagon. Americans must ask themselves WHY "big oil" hasn't invested in more refineries here in the US in the last 30 years. Find that answer, and you will partially answer the question of how the price of oil has come to where it is today in America.

Why doesn't the Federal governemnt eliminate the TAX they impose on the CONSUMER of the oil and gasoline? Why don't state governments eliminate the TAX on oil and gasoline that it imposes on the CONSUMER? Why doesn't the Federal and State governments eliminate the road use tax on diesel fuel used by trucks to deliver most goods to American consumers? This would go a long way in the credibility of the sincereity of the government's concern for the American being "gouged" by "big oil." Sounds to me like "big oil" isn't the only one doing the "gouging" here. Taxes are more of a gouge than profits.

The Federal and State government should be offering "big oil" incentives to increase refinery production. State governments should be encouraging "big oil" to explore, drill, and produce more domestic oil. State and federal government should be giving TAX CREDITS for alternative energy production and delivery to consumer stations. State and Federal government should be giving TAX CREDITS to automakers for producing alternative energy vehicles. Consumers who purchase alternative energy automobiles should receive TAX CREDITS. Where are these programs?

This business of blaming "big oil" for earning "too much profit" seems to be a socialistic scam designed to steal money from American Industry. American Consumers, if they don't like the price of gas and oil, should develop alternatives to heating their homes and driving their gasoline powered vehicles. They should have done this after the first oil shock in the 70's. American consumers have had 30 years to do this and they have only increased their dependecy upon "big oil." Then, when the world price of oil rises above what they deem "fair", instead of looking in the mirror and asking themselves why it is negatively affecting them, they conveniently blame "big oil." It is like blaming the drug producer and dealer for the drug addict's dependency upon addictive drugs. It is absurd. Furthermore, I wonder why it is that Americans do not even understand the children's story of the Three Little Pigs?

The American politicians, from both aisles, will jump on this "let's get em" mentality so as to garner the allegiance of the voting American public. They will lead the charge to "make em pay" for these "obscene" profits. All this will do is drive "big oil" out of the US market and leave it to the foreign oil companies to supply a super addicted society that has no one else to blame but themselves for the position they are in today with regard to the price of oil.

Even if the Government doesn't drive out the oil companies, "big oil" will get the signal and begin to structure itself so as to insulate itself from the great transfer of wealth that the government pulled off against the tobacco companies. And you can bet the American consumer will be at the bottom of their priorities with regard to their position in the market in the future.

[Sean]

Moved. Dan, do you not understand how this is not "latest news"? This is analysis. There is a difference. Moved to Politics, where it belongs.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: brien Are the oil companies "allowed" to make a profit?

Absolutely. And Enron was allowed to make a profit too. Until they abused the privelege/right. Their monopoly on the California energy market pretty much gave them the PIN number to everycitizen in California. If we didnt pay their asking price, no problem... Rolling Blackout Time. No Problem? That all came about because of deregulation.

Quote by: brien I spend the money to lease or purchase the land, to drill the well and bring the water to the surface and it doesn't belong to me? Sounds very Communist in theory to me.

Well, we need to draw the line somewhere, imo. At what point should the fed step in and say "ENOUGH, it has become extortion" ? We dont have a Free Market as long as the oil cabal artificially jacks prices using their own greed as the only guidelines for regulation.

Quote by: brien It is like blaming the drug producer and dealer for the drug addict's dependency upon addictive drugs

Not really. The drug addict only "thinks" he needs the product. Even if both his body and mind concur, it doesnt make it true. In todays society they pretty much have us over a barrel. Since we cannot just return to the land as hunters and gatherers, without paying huge licenses, fees, permits, wilderness passes and/or rent/purchase land. Until those government controls are lifted, we have to have affordable fuel to survive as citified folk. Meanwhile, subsisting on Waldon Pond, I would still suffer from the smog produced by big oil even though I am not consuming their product. And the government is allowing it because they have an ego-centric, immoral, idiot planted in the White House to lock in and insure unfettered greed to rob the American citizens of their bank accts.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Sean Moved. Dan, do you not understand how this is not "latest news"?

I thought it was pretty big news.... "....quarterly profit of about $8.7 billion." Quarterly profit is MORE than Coca Cola makes all year? I didnt realize the article had to be from the front page. Is that the problem?

[Milton Bradley]

You cannot boycott these guys by going to a local Mom, and Pop refinery, there is no such option left.


Probably the single biggest contributor to the problems we suffer today is allowing these corporate giants, annd multinationals to trade on the Stock Exchange. When profit became the single goal, operating a corporation that is actually beneficial to community became a page in the history books.


When was the last time citizens dissolved a business that did not meet community standards other than bible thumpers going after pornography outlets? I know I cannot offer a single example.


I am not suggesting that dissolving the oil companies this late in the game is the answer. Just more, or less pointing out how the option has been lost to posterity, and the concept seems foreign to most people today.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Milton Bradley When was the last time citizens dissolved a business that did not meet community standards other than bible thumpers going after pornography outlets? I know I cannot offer a single example.

There used to be a sunset for ALL corporations. It was imposed like around 1912 or so because of the robber barons. I dont have time to look it up right now. Be back shortly.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien Back to "big oil." We must, as a Capitalistic society, recognize that "big oil" is in business to earn a profit. They, as capitalists, can sell their oil to the highest bidder in a world free market. What right do Americans have to demand that "big oil" sell their oil to the US consumer at a price lower than other world buyers?

So, if by chance or design, one oil company came to acquire all the others (and there isn't that many anymore), and effectively controlled all the oil sold in the U.S., you'd see no problem with them setting whatever price they wanted on "their" oil?

What about the fact that production on the North Slope for instance, is coming out of public land leased to the oil companies? Doesn't that mean that oil belongs to all of us? Don't we then have the right to negotiate a fair profit margin for the services required to pump and refine it?

[Compugasm]

Quote by: brien How did the United States get into a position that allows itself to be so dependent upon oil that when the price soars, they are hurt big time?

The theory was, there was no need to make a mad rush for it, because oil isn't rare. It's not a fossil fuel created from dinosaurs. Montana or Texas should be brimming with fossils then, and they're not. Patrick Henry provided this link a while ago that desribes where oil comes from. 50 years ago, there was more of a push for Nuclear energy than oil. They must've known even way back then that oil is obtainable almost anywhere providing it's possible to dig deep enough and extract it. There are lots of places in the US where you don't have to dig that deep.

Fear seems to be pretty effective too. What better way to keep everyone paying high prices, than threatening a California style energy crisis should prices fall below $3 a gallon. The current oil reserves estimate that 2050 is date it will run out and there is billions which can be extracted. In school, we've been told oil would run out by 2010 and dinosaurs died it tar pits. Isn't tar made of hydrocarbons? What came first, the dino or the tar pit?

Quote by: Zeebadee Don't we then have the right to negotiate a fair profit margin for the services required to pump and refine it?

As mentioned before, that's where the problem lies. There are few places to turning the stuff you take out of the ground, into something useful. As mentioned before, technology advances have extended what we have, but places to produce energy (Nuclear or Refineries) haven't been made at a rate to keep up with consumption.

You could argue that people think nothing of paying $4 for a cup of coffee, but $3 gas is outrageous. However, I couldn't brew my own gasoline for 10 cents a cup. I hope the companies aren't taxed, because they will simply pass the cost to the consumer. They should be allowed to reinvest those profits.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Absolutely. And Enron was allowed to make a profit too. Until they abused the privelege/right. Their monopoly on the California energy market pretty much gave them the PIN number to everycitizen in California. If we didnt pay their asking price, no problem... Rolling Blackout Time. No Problem? That all came about because of deregulation. Well, we need to draw the line somewhere, imo. At what point should the fed step in and say "ENOUGH, it has become extortion" ? We dont have a Free Market as long as the oil cabal artificially jacks prices using their own greed as the only guidelines for regulation. Not really. The drug addict only "thinks" he needs the product. Even if both his body and mind concur, it doesnt make it true. In todays society they pretty much have us over a barrel. Since we cannot just return to the land as hunters and gatherers, without paying huge licenses, fees, permits, wilderness passes and/or rent/purchase land. Until those government controls are lifted, we have to have affordable fuel to survive as citified folk. Meanwhile, subsisting on Waldon Pond, I would still suffer from the smog produced by big oil even though I am not consuming their product. And the government is allowing it because they have an ego-centric, immoral, idiot planted in the White House to lock in and insure unfettered greed to rob the American citizens of their bank accts.

Yes, some of what you write make valid points but the main thrust of the argument here is that Americans have had 30 years to prepare for this and they have been fiddling while Rome burns. And as far as California, if level headed, foresighted, logical people were in charge, you would not have the problems that exist now. California has an anti-refinery, anti power production, not in my back yard mentality that they will now have to live with. So tell the people in California to shut up already. They chose their future and now they want to whine about it and and blame everyone but themselves. Thier lot is the result of what THEY CHOSE as a future, not what "big oil" has forced upon them.

Oh and btw, drug addicted people, PHYSICALLY REQUIRE the drug or their bodies become sick. Just like an alcoholic needs his juice, or he will suffer withdrawal.

As far a regulation. OK. Look up Huey Long because you sound just like him. Governor of Louisiana during the 30's. He was going to whip all the asses of those Standard Oil men. He was the "Kingfish" out to save this land. "Ain't no oil men gunna run this state, gunna be run by little folks like me and you" "If there is something belonging to others, there's enough for all people to share" was a line from his political theme song. Back door socialism.

I can only say it once again. The State of California, and the Nation, is in trouble with so called "big oil" because the US did NOTHING to wean itself away from "big oil" tits after the oil shocks of the 70's. Foolish Americans learned NOTHING from the shortages, the long lines, the alternate license plate fill up days, and the rationing. So they deserve everything they are experiencing in today's market.

Once again it is time to take action in terms of conservation, production, refinery construction and alternative fuel development. It takes 10 years to bring a new refinery on line so someone better get with it. And if the people in California want energy, they have two options: PRODUCE it or BUY it. Plain and simple. It is once again, their choice, maybe this time they will choose wisely.

Just one more comment. I don't see how the "idiot" in the White House has anything to do with the control of oil prices? He has screwed a lot of things up but "robbing the peoples bank accounts"? I understand he can take the blame on his watch but I can't see how you can fault him exclusively for something that is the result of 30 years of inaction in American energy policy. If you want to blame the Administration, then go back and blame all of them in the last 30 years for an ineffective and non existent national energy policy.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien So tell the people in California to shut up already. They chose their future and now they want to whine about it and and blame everyone but themselves. Thier lot is the result of what THEY CHOSE as a future, not what "big oil" has forced upon them.

Yeah, it's all the people's fault. Never mind that neither political party has shown any interest in pushing for improving the situation, or made any kind of serious effort to change our energy policies, it's the victims that are to blame. We all must realize that the average Joe should come home after his 8 hours at work, go down to his basement lab and work on more efficient engines and alternate energy sources.

You sound like a person that's not being too much affected by big oil price gouging, but I'll bet that's more the product of luck and circumstances than by planning and personal effort.

[brien]

Quote by: Zeebadee Yeah, it's all the people's fault. Never mind that neither political party has shown any interest in pushing for improving the situation, or made any kind of serious effort to change our energy policies, it's the victims that are to blame. We all must realize that the average Joe should come home after his 8 hours at work, go down to his basement lab and work on more efficient engines and alternate energy sources. You sound like a person that's not being too much affected by big oil price gouging, but I'll bet that's more the product of luck and circumstances than by planning and personal effort.

Well you can sling all of the personal sh*t you want at me but it is irrelevant. So I will dismiss it. I happen to be in the trucking business and fuel prices affect me more than your ignorant statement ever will. So, once again, I will let it pass.

YOU want someone to blame. YOU call those affected the "victims." That is plain and simple BS. You don't get it. There is no fault here. There are only market forces at work. The people affected by this should have put PRESSURE upon their politicians 30 years ago. Do you remember the 70's at all? Were you even on the planet? The people of both parties did nothing because they weren't held accountable then and now YOU are looking for someone to hang. This is mob mentality that has nothing to do with the siituation at hand. It is merely anger looking for a victim to blame the American intransience of the last 30 years upon.

So sit around and whine and point the finger all you want but it will do NOTHING to fix the situation America is in today. I have already outlined what I think will begin to move America away from its dependence upon oil. Feel free to look it up. And meanwhile, perhaps you should quit looking to blame someone and start developing a plan for your own personal move away from the dependence upon your boogey men. Do something positive instead of fingerpointing and playing the blame game. Negativity never solved anything. :)

Oh and btw, I have planned for these shortages and price run ups. I have also outlined that in other posts as well. So luck and circumstance has nothng to do with my move away from personal dependency upon oil. You seem to speculate upon conjecture when referring to me so I would politiely ask you to refrain from doing it.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: brien but the main thrust of the argument here is that Americans have had 30 years to prepare for this and they have been fiddling while Rome burns.

Its easy to argue that Edison should have invented the light bulb sooner. http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story074.htm . Ben Franklin was pretty sharp he should have done it. In fact while he was at it he should have come up with this FIRST: http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ano_light.html (Think of all the money you'd have now, if you didnt have to replace light bulbs)

Quote by: brien California has an anti-refinery, anti power production, not in my back yard mentality that they will now have to live with.

Well for all the huge population and industry, California produces plenty of petrol to support itself, and with plenty to export. There really should be a limit. When I was a child I remember globs of tar and corpses of marine life washed ashore, something had to be done. Have you ever happened on an expired baby seal during a stroll on the beach? Major bummer.

Quote by: brien So tell the people in California to shut up already

You shut up. We did something about the smog that made my eyes water all day.

Quote by: brien Oh and btw, drug addicted people, PHYSICALLY REQUIRE the drug or their bodies become sick. Just like an alcoholic needs his juice, or he will suffer withdrawal.

Only while they detox. The human body doesnt "Require" recreational drugs and alcohol to exist. Alcoholism/addiction are treatable, not necessarily painless. But the pain goes away, unless you choose to feed the beast again.

Quote by: brien Look up Huey Long because you sound just like him. Governor of Louisiana during the 30's. He was going to whip all the asses of those Standard Oil men.

I am not familiar with him, I would be glad to look him up. Later today. For now I will ask you how you feel about government handing over the water resources of your city to an international corporation to set the price of "their" water as they deem fair?

Link http://www.counterpunch.org/claybrookjeb.html ....In 1999, Enron subsidiary Azurix proposed a scheme under which it would help pay for Everglades restoration in exchange for water rights. Approximately two weeks after Enron's plan was proposed, you appointed James Garner III, an Azurix lobbyist, to the Governor's Commission for the Everglades;...

GWB would not step up and help California stave off the 1000% increases ENRON was syphoning off energy customers, while his brother, Jeb and Swartzennegger was in bed with Kenny "Boy" Lay.

Quote by: brien I can only say it once again. The State of California, and the Nation, is in trouble with so called "big oil" because the US did NOTHING to wean itself away from "big oil" tits after the oil shocks of the 70's.

And I will repeat, what if it were water that is being pumped? How are we supposed to "wean" ourselves off the water tit?

Quote by: brien It takes 10 years to bring a new refinery on line so someone better get with it. And if the people in California want energy, they have two options: PRODUCE it or BUY it.

Tough talk, but we already produce enough for ourselves and others, what is your state doing to "wean" itself off of Californias oily tit, and start producing your own alternet energy? A symbol of todays White House? One of the first things Dumbya did was to remove the solar panels from the White House roof. Oily bastard. And now he is losing his mind (Cheney)? Good. Maybe he'll just jump.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien Well you can sling all of the personal sh*t you want at me but it is irrelevant. So I will dismiss it. I happen to be in the trucking business and fuel prices affect me more than your ignorant statement ever will. So, once again, I will let it pass.

I don't believe I was slinging any "personal sh*t" at you at all.

Quote by: brien YOU want someone to blame. YOU call those affected the "victims." That is plain and simple BS. You don't get it. There is no fault here. There are only market forces at work.

Wrong, it's not me that wants someone to blame. It's you that's doing that. And when one or two companies effectively control the entire supply of anything, and work to artificially keep prices high, it ceases to be free enterprise and becomes extortion. If your idea of market force is to buy a company, eliminate the competition, jack up the prices, screw the customer, I think you are wrong. Not slinging sh*t here, just disagreeing with you.

Quote by: brien The people affected by this should have put PRESSURE upon their politicians 30 years ago. Do you remember the 70's at all? Were you even on the planet? The people of both parties did nothing because they weren't held accountable then and now YOU are looking for someone to hang. This is mob mentality that has nothing to do with the siituation at hand. It is merely anger looking for a victim to blame the American intransience of the last 30 years upon.

Yes, I remember the 70's. That's just about when I started planning for the current situation. I really don't care what the oil companies charge, I have worked to put myself in the position where I'm not affected much by them. I bought Exxon stock over two years ago, and it's doing quite well. My issue is with your blame game, not with the price of gas. It's nice that you can sit back and accuse others of finger pointing, all the time pointing your own finger. You can talk about holding political parties accountable all you want, but the fact is that those most affected by the current situation are those people that have the least political clout to do anything about it. Politicians, especially in California, don't pay much attention to those without the means to buy influence.

Quote by: brien So sit around and whine and point the finger all you want but it will do NOTHING to fix the situation America is in today.

As I said, I'm not the one whining and finger-pointing, that's you.

Quote by: brien I have already outlined what I think will begin to move America away from its dependence upon oil. Feel free to look it up. And meanwhile, perhaps you should quit looking to blame someone and start developing a plan for your own personal move away from the dependence upon your boogey men. Do something positive instead of fingerpointing and playing the blame game. Negativity never solved anything. :) Oh and btw, I have planned for these shortages and price run ups. I have also outlined that in other posts as well. So luck and circumstance has nothng to do with my move away from personal dependency upon oil. You seem to speculate upon conjecture when referring to me so I would politiely ask you to refrain from doing it.

I'm speculating upon conjecture? And you're telling me "you should quit looking to blame someone and start developing a plan for your own personal move away from the dependence upon your boogey men. Do something positive instead of fingerpointing and playing the blame game"?? Perhaps you ought to refrain from conjecture yourself.

[Osborn F Enready]

In regards to gr8fulDaniels information about incorporation.

( as per this site: http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/corporations.html )
corporations: an overview
A corporation is a legal entity created through the laws of its state of incorporation. Individual states have the power to promulgate laws relating to the creation, organization and dissolution of corporations. Many states follow the Model Business Corporation Act. (See Minnesota's adoption.) State corporation laws require articles of incorporation to document the corporation's creation and to provide provisions regarding the management of internal affairs. Most state corporation statutes also operate under the assumption that each corporation will adopt bylaws to define the rights and obligations of officers, persons and groups within its structure. States also have registration laws requiring corporations that incorporate in other states to request permission to do in-state business.

There has also been a significant component of Federal corporations law since Congress passed the Securities Act of 1933, which regulates how corporate securities are issued and sold. Federal securities law also governs requirements of fiduciary conduct such as requiring corporations to make full disclosures to shareholders and investors.

The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders. The legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholders from being personally liable for corporate debts. It also allows stockholders to sue the corporation through a derivative suit and makes ownership in the company (shares) easily transferable. The legal "person" status of corporations gives the business perpetual life; deaths of officials or stockholders do not alter the corporation's structure.

Corporations are taxable entities that fall under a different scheme from individuals. Although corporations have a "double tax" problem --both corporate profits and shareholder dividends are taxed -- corporate profits are taxed at a lower rate than rates for individuals.

Corporate law has important intersections with contract and commercial transactions law.

Also, this page has much interesting information, even if in some parts I may find some levels or issues of disagreement.
http://www.iei.net/~doghouse/501c3.htm

Also, this is my opinion almost verbatim, though not written by me.

(clippet from: http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/3...w?viewtype=all )
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controlled the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passedto circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Its easy to argue that Edison should have invented the light bulb sooner. http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...s/story074.htm . Ben Franklin was pretty sharp he should have done it. In fact while he was at it he should have come up with this FIRST: http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ano_light.html (Think of all the money you'd have now, if you didnt have to replace light bulbs) Well for all the huge population and industry, California produces plenty of petrol to support itself, and with plenty to export. There really should be a limit. When I was a child I remember globs of tar and corpses of marine life washed ashore, something had to be done. Have you ever happened on an expired baby seal during a stroll on the beach? Major bummer. You shut up. We did something about the smog that made my eyes water all day. Only while they detox. The human body doesnt "Require" recreational drugs and alcohol to exist. Alcoholism/addiction are treatable, not necessarily painless. But the pain goes away, unless you choose to feed the beast again. I am not familiar with him, I would be glad to look him up. Later today. For now I will ask you how you feel about government handing over the water resources of your city to an international corporation to set the price of "their" water as they deem fair? GWB would not step up and help California stave off the 1000% increases ENRON was syphoning off energy customers, while his brother, Jeb and Swartzennegger was in bed with Kenny "Boy" Lay.And I will repeat, what if it were water that is being pumped? How are we supposed to "wean" ourselves off the water tit? Tough talk, but we already produce enough for ourselves and others, what is your state doing to "wean" itself off of Californias oily tit, and start producing your own alternet energy? A symbol of todays White House? One of the first things Dumbya did was to remove the solar panels from the White House roof. Oily bastard. And now he is losing his mind (Cheney)? Good. Maybe he'll just jump.

Well there is alot to respond to here. I will keep it short. The main point of my view is that Americans want someone to blame here. And you seem to hate GWB so much you want to hang him with 30 years of indifference by every president who occupied the White House. You blind hatred tends to disqualify you from objective viewpoints. I think Americans should look in the mirror. When I said for Californians to"shut up already" I meant that they should quit complaining. If they have done everything you say they have done, then all well and good, but maybe it wasn't enough, was it? What is the saying: "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Ted Turner, I believe.

As for your comparison to Edison, that is a Red Herring. Americans were warned 30 years ago and they did NOTHING. They had the knowledge, the tools, the incentives and all they lacked was the will. There is no way around it. I refuse to blame anyone for market conditions. I will blame Americans for doing nothing when they were made aware of the oil situation in the 70's. People should hold their politicians responsible when, or if ,they used public pressure for alternatives to oil. Otherwise, shame on us for not repsonding properly to the oil crisis of the 70's. If you were alive then, you know what I mean. If not, well then I suggest you read about it because it was scary enough to predict what is happening today.

This is not an individual states problem in oil production. This is an American problem. It doesn't matter where the oil comes from in a world market. I didn't introduce California's problems into the argument, someone else did. I commented on them and I stand by my comments. California knew it needed water since Los Angeles was first developed and the state should have taken steps to insure the proper levels and quality of its water. California can purchase its water from other venues. But they will have to pay for it. Same for electric. That is the part that everyone gets all screwy about, purchasing it.

I know nothing about California's water/electric problems but I do know that the state doesn't exist in a vacuum. It must have known that it needed water and electricity to sustain its growth. Any logical person moving into the state must make themselves aware of the problems associated with living there. I, as a East Coaster, know that if I move to LA there is a good chance I will be in a earthquake someday. So I must prepare for that circumstance. And if I don't , who am I going to blame? Me, that's who. If I move into the desert and don't find potable water whose problem is it? Mine, not yours. If California can't provide the basic necessities of life, why do they continue to allow growth? I would say that is quite irresponsible. They need to place a moratorium upon growth until these problems are corrected. But no, the greedy government sees tax dollars that come along with its endorsement of irresponsible growth. If that is what is happening out there, then whose fault is that now? The greedy electric companies, the worn out water companies? No, it is the fault of the government for allowing the growth and the those who participate in such risky development ventures.

So big oil polluted the coastline. It has been cleaned up and regulations are in place to safeguard the enviornment, correct? If they aren't, them get them in there. So if Californians hold your opinion that they produce enough oil for themselves, good for them. But who do they sell it to now? To the highest bidder, that is who. Californians are no more entitled to that oil than the Chinese because PRIVATE INDUSTRY leased the land, drilled the well, and refined the products. If the Chinese are willing to pay $80 a barrel, and Californians opt out at $60, then why would you blame the producers for selling to the Chinese? If I drill a water well, and wish to sell my water to the highest bidder, then what right has the government to tell me who I can sell it to, except for reasons of National Security.

Sorry you get so defensive about California, but this is really an American problem, not just a Californian one.

In summary, all I am writing is that Americans have to be responsible for our own society. We can't depend upon government to protect us from everything in life that is big bad and ugly. Especially economic situations like the current one. Government can play a role but it certainly shouldn't be one like it demonstrated in the tobacco companies transfer of wealth from Corporate America to the state legislatures to line the pockets of crooked politicians.

We, as Americans, must hold our legislators accountable for responsible alternative energy development. We must hold them responsible for introducing incentives to produce and refine more oil products to responsibly satisfy demand. We must hold them accountable to set up incentives to responsibly develop, supply and deliver alternative energy. And we need to QUIT assigning blame through blind hatred and political partisianship to a situation that should have been remedied over the last 30 years. Punishing the big oil company solution is wholly anti capitalistic, and even if it were a viable solution, it is 30 years too late.