let's nationalize "Big Oil"

[welshTerrier2]

let me start out by saying that i'm no economist and i hope those with a stronger background in economics can add something to this thread ...

the proposition: let's nationalize the big oil companies ...

do i seriously believe either Democrats or republicans will ever be interested in pushing this idea? no, i don't ...

it's interesting, though, that with all the current fervor for "free" markets and good old fashioned capitalism, some obvious abuses go largely unnoticed ...

let's make a list ...

first, and probably most important, our government lives and breathes to cater to the greedy whims of mega-corporations, especially big oil ... these companies are not "the national interest"; they represent a narrow group of stockholders who seek to maximize profits no matter what the costs to the nation ...

second, let's talk about the massive subsidies of big oil that we've seen spent in Iraq ... the US goes to war and spends and spends and spends ... the result: all time record profits in the oil industry ... don't see the connection? well, there is a very direct connection ... $200 billion could have bought a whole lot of conservation measures, energy tax incentives, and investment in "earth friendly" technology ... but, nope, we went to war ... i've read several articles that tie the RECORD PROFITS in the oil industry to the price of a barrel of oil ... and why has the price of a barrel of oil risen so sharply? simple ... market instability caused by the military and political instability in Iraq ... you couldn't have written a better script to help the oil companies ...

so, "free" marketers, the "free" market is anything but ... our government has underwritten the profits made by big oil to the tune of more than $200 billion ... the idea that a bunch of capitalists are running around competing for the consumers' dollars in an unencumbered "free" market is total nonsense ... what you really have going on is blatant crony capitalism and an abuse of your government's democratic institutions ... what you really have going on is an imperialistic foreign policy for the sole benefit of trans-national corporations ...

and third, in nationalizing the oil industry and removing the "profit motive", the federal government would have fewer incentives to cater to the oil industry opening the door to a more rational program of conservation and investment in alternative energy sources ... with a "free" market in the oil industry, that road is essentially blockaded ...

we need to take back our government and our country from those who buy our elected officials and have the clout to direct policy for their own greed ... changes such as outlawing paid lobbyists, which we used to refer to as bribing government officials, and more restrictive campaign finance reforms would be helpful but will not solve the problem ... greed, money and power have a way of circumventing these controls ... so, a good starting point would be nationalizing the oil industry ... energy policy needs to serve the best interests of the country; not the best interests of a narrow group of corporate stockholders ...

comments?

[getmeouttahere]

1. Nationalizing ANYTHING would require...

having someone like Kucinich or other like-minded Dems or Greens in charge. Would they live long enough to institute things like a corporate charter, nationalization of certain industries, etc. I wonder.

[welshTerrier2]

7. politically viable?

i don't think we're within a million miles of making this suggestion politically viable ... most Americans really don't understand that their government does not serve them but rather serves those who can afford to finance those who run for office ...

but we have to start somewhere ... as with many policies, e.g. US imperialism, the process has to start with educating the public ...

we may have to take baby steps for some time to come but we have to start if we hope to reclaim our country and our government ... i worry that Democrats are too fearful of being labeled "un-American" (e.g. the "blame America first crowd") if they criticize what IS CURRENTLY being done in our names ...

real leadership and real patriotism would seek to return our government to the service of the American people ... if we fear the consequences of the struggle, we're left fighting other issues at the margins ... i believe if the people eventually come to know the truth, there will be a new American revolution and they will drive the corporatists out of their government ...

[bejammin075]

100. Never will happen, but here's what we can do

Support clean renuable energy, and put oil out of business. When I get the time, I'll look into solar panels in a lot of detail. I know they are expensive ("not economically viable"), but I can afford to plaster my roof with them. I'll bite the bullet and be an early adopter, at greater cost to me, so that the renuable energy industry is supported, and they sell more products, which helps them do more R&D, which helps the eco-consumer of the future.

Also, if we could just stop the insane policy of giving billions $ to Gas Oil Petrolium (that spells GOP, yo) and give it to renuable energy, but that will take a major political shift, like the clean sweep in 2006 and impeachment that leaves such a stain that progressives rule the country in 2008. One can dream. Now back to exposing Bush's lies.

[fishwax]

110. I don't think they would

even if they were politically viable, I would think they'd have a short life expectancy once elected :(

[Bluesplayer]

2. Nationalize Big Oil?

Look around. See who's running the country? Big Oil has nationalized us.

[ironman202]

5. my first act as newly elected king of the world would be

to abolish corporations as a whole. You want to own shares of a company? Fine. But you are PERSONALLY responsible for the actions of that company. A Corporation is a legal fiction designed to limit liability and to protect profit. Fuck that shit.

[TahitiNut]

14. At a minimum ...

... I'd prohibit a corporation from owning a corporation. (Property can't own property.) I'd prohibit trans-jurisdictional corporations under the commerce clause. (Property should only exist within a single jurisdiction for entitlement purposes.) A corporation that operates within a state can be incorporated in that state, not another. A corporation that operates nationally would be incorporated at the federal level.

Furthermore, I'd immediately impose a 1% sales tax on the sale of equities (shares of corporate stock) at the national level for national corporations. For corporations wishing to avoid the sales tax by incorporating at the state level in a state without such a sales tax, I wish them good luck constraining their operations inside Utah or Wyoming.

[Burried News]

24. If I had seen your post I would not have posted. It took me a page

to get to where you are. Kudos.

[Festivito]

92. "Big oil has nationalized us." INDEED!

I don't know about nationalizing big oil, but, for example, drilling in ANWR if needed so badly should be run by volunteers and the monies distributed to the American people.

[wli]

3. sounds like a "Wellstone him now!" policy n/t

[sui generis]

4. we don't need to do "extremist" tactics but

there are some other things that will definitely work.

The first thing is required production capacity. Today the oil companies are taking strategic refineries out of production out of schedule for the sole purpose of increasing demand and hiking prices.

We need to regulate that. If they can't keep their refineries in the supply chain on line, then we'll help them out.

The second thing is controlling rampant market speculation. If we control how fast gas prices can rise in relationship to oil production or some other factor besides refinery capacity, or if we add a steep windfall tax as a disincentive to artificially raise prices, we'll get some investor flight but we'll also get price stability, and price stability means lower transportation costs for consumers and the goods they use and potentially more spending on hiring than on transportation.

Investors will eventually come back around or else start seriously exploring energy and transportation technologies geared to replace nonrenewable hydrocarbon tech.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Nothing happens without public support.

Just the fact that people are thinking about it, may loosen some of the control that Big Oil has over us. They may actually allow some real R&D to go through to appease the unrest among the masses.

[eallen]

8. To every problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.

The US nationalizing its oil industry wouldn't do a thing about global oil prices. You might note that there are plenty of nations where the oil industry is nationalized, or owned by ruling families, and think about how much effect that has had. Mexico. Venezuela. Saudi Arabia. But those are oil exporting nations. The US imports well over half of the oil it consumes. Our interest isn't just in oil here, whose production has been declining since the 1970s, but more in the oil over there.

Or do you hope for the US government to acquire control over foreign oil resources by nationalizing US companies that own them? If so, consider two issues. (1) Big Oil is not just a bunch of US companies. Royal Dutch Shell. British Petroleum. It's kind of hard to nationalize a foreign company. (2) Do you really think the US government should seek control of foreign assets by nationalizing US companies? How do you think foreign nations would and should respond to that? What happens if we nationalize a US company that owns a large slice of a foreign field, and the government there decides the appropriate response is just to nationalize that slice of the field?

It seems to be a common response among some, whenever a market change hurts the consumer, to blame the companies involved, and seek nationalization. Unfortunately.

[welshTerrier2]

11. "whenever a market change hurts"

this completely misses the points i raised (as have one or two others in this thread) ...

i said nothing about "helping consumers" ... i am talking about a total corruption of our government ... i am talking about starting and continuing wars to destabilize the oil markets ... i am talking about financing political parties and directing foreign policy ... i am talking about interfering with the internal politics of other countries to topple their governments ... i am talking about setting up US puppets in other countries who will be friendly to certain investors ...

this is NOT a "gas pump" revolution ... perhaps higher gas prices may even stimulate conservation ... the point of my post was to talk about democracy and how it, and we, have been sold down the river ...

[lostinacause]

30. So then why not just make the changes necessary in the other areas.

Nationalizing an industry is difficult and will likely (almost surely) have a negative effect on other industries.

[NuttyFluffers]

112. Nationalizing an industry is NOTHING compared to war.

Especially two wars.

Especially two unpopular wars that compromise most of our diplomatic clout, our "power projection" for emergencies, and driving us into a economic death spiral.

No. We are in the deepest of shit imaginable now. Nationalizing an industry is like corn kernels in shit logs -- it could only be a respite.

[K-W]

13. Nice strawman.

Nobody is suggesting the entire global oil situation is caused by corporations. The question is whether or not we can afford to let reckless profiteers control our domestic oil industry during these times of global oil crises.

[welshTerrier2]

19. "control our domestic oil industry"

and our foreign and domestic policy ...

more drilling, less environmental regulation, easing of pollution controls, little investment in alternative energy, war with Iraq, war with Iran, war with Venezuela, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax giveaways in the energy bill ...

it's very clear to me that our government is serving the stockholders of big oil and NOT the best interests of the American people ... that's what this is all about and that's what needs to be changed ...

[mhr]

93. US Production Peaked In 1970

There is no significant domestic oil to find.

[eallen]

22. The solution to that is to elect different politicians.

Do you think proposing the nationalization of an entire industry helps or hurts that cause?

:hippie:

[K-W]

26. That would be a part of the solution, but alone would solve nothing.

It doesnt matter if we have the most perfect democratic government in the world if they have no authority over corporations.

As far as whether this proposal helps or hurts the case. It more than likely has nothing whatsoever to do with the case.

[lostinacause]

35. I don't think you fully understand the consequences of what you are

proposing. First of all the government would have to compensate individuals for their losses meaning that the government would have to purchase the company. This of course would be expensive given the time period. If you can even make it to this point the PR costs are already high. Then you have to deal with investment and technology decisions. Both of which publicly owned companies have a terrible track record. Because of poor decisions with investment and technology production will either be less then ideal or at too high of a price creating an increasing pressure for the global price to increase. Taxing oil companies would prove to be a better idea and even that has a number of long term consequences.

This of course ignores that this type of action is very difficult to do in any country let alone a country as capitalistic as America.

[K-W]

39. I have proposed nothing of the sort.

First off, I did not propose nationalization, nor is nationalization my preferred strategy, although I do prefer it to continuing the current system.

Secondly, proposing nationalization is not the same as proposing botched nationalization anymore than wanting the troops home now means wanting every single one of them to turn and start running at this very second.

Most of your post is a critisim of one particular style of nationalization which I doubt anyone here supports.

Your suggestion that publically controlled companies will make worse decisions than privately controlled companies is baseless. In both cases the decision making quality depends on the structure of the company. Neither public nor private organization has a monoploy on good or bad governance structures. Meanwhile in the big picture having the overall motivation of an industry be the public good rather than profit for the few would result in massively better investment and management decisions.


It would indeed be impossible and stupid for the government to try and just take over corporations in one fell swoop. I cant speak for anyone else on this thread, but I would never suggest or support such a plan.

I would want to see a rational pragmatic strategy to reform the industry.

[lostinacause]

49. The major difference between a government control and

and individual control is that when the government makes a mistake there is very little consequence. When a company makes a mistake they compromise their ability to stay in business. If they are inefficient and still making a profit it is possible for them to be bought out.

If my suggestion was baseless you won't see the huge success in cost reductions that are caused by contracting out government services such as construction to private companies.

What is your preferred strategy?

[K-W]

54. That just isnt true.

A public government would face the exact same economic consequences as a private government. In fact it would face more consequences. Since in a privately governed industry the only consequences that matter are those that effect the bottom line. Whereas a publically governed industry would have to answer for the consequences to everyone. The idea that a privately owned organization that could maybe be bought out by another private owner faces more consequences than an organization that includes democratic controls is absurd. By that logic Kings are a better form of government than Democracy, because apparently having someone privately own the government would make it more responsive to consequences.

If my suggestion was baseless you won't see the huge success in cost reductions that are caused by contracting out government services such as construction to private companies.

If you limit your view of the world to a balance sheet you might have a point. But in terms of overall cost privitization is massively inefficient. Private firms lower costs by socializing them.

What is your preferred strategy?

Ending corporate personhood and taking slow careful steps to bring law and order to the economy.

[lostinacause]

60. I must first say that I am impressed by you ability to provide a clear

and rational argument.

First of all you must look to the current government in America. Are they really serving the needs of the people? Do you believe that any others are? I know that the Liberal party (Canada) has done some things that are similar in nature, but not in consequence, to what the Bush administration has done. Democratic political parties and to a lesser extent individual politicians always serve to look out for their own interests in some way or another. The vote is how these interests align. So already at this point there are differences in interests even before the rationality of voters, imperfect information and the level of competition is taken into account. When the imperfection of the information voters have is taken into account small issues like the governance of companies is not that important and not that well know. This means that governments will not be held accountable for decisions made regarding a privatized industry such as oil. (There is also the possibility of overproduction because of pricing pressures as has happened in the past with other public utilities.)

When people do not hold the government accountable on an issue such as these, government officials do things like give friends jobs in upper management. When this happens the performance is likely to go down. Also the decision to replace poorly performing upper management is done with the same kind of favoritism. There is evidence of this in both the Bush administration and Paul Martin's choices of appointees. There is also no competition between companies meaning that the incentive to become more efficient is limited just as is present in most monopolies. (Microsoft is an exception to the rule as they are competing against themselves).

The private market does a good job of ensuring that companies minimize expenses both by necessity and because of self interest. The example of a king being “a good governance structure” is not the same because there is no competition. A king doesn’t have to risk going out of business or being bought out for a low price. A kings wellbeing is also dependent on low costs of labour and high prices and is a price setter in both markets. The same could not be said about oil companies.

[K-W]

65. Thank you.

First of all you must look to the current government in America. Are they really serving the needs of the people? Do you believe that any others are?

No I dont think it is, I believe others do moreso, but I would not be satisified with any of them. I think we still have a very long way to go before we can claim to have a government that is any way shape or form democratic. At best the US population has an advise and consent role in its own government.

political parties and to a lesser extent individual politicians always serve to look out for their own interests in some way or another. The vote is how these interests align. So already at this point there are differences in interests even before the rationality of voters, imperfect information and the level of competition is taken into account.

Indeed. Which is why good government is setup in a way that aligns the indidividual politicians interests with the interests of the people. But yes, you are right, we do not have good government. Politicians need not act as servents of the people to stay elected, so they dont.

When the imperfection of the information voters have is taken into account small issues like the governance of companies is not that important and not that well know. This means that governments will not be held accountable for decisions made regarding a privatized industry such as oil. (There is also the possibility of overproduction because of pricing pressures as has happened in the past with other public utilities.)

I dont agree with this entirely. People need not know exactly how the oil industry works to know whether it is performing to thier liking, but regardless I generally agree. It would be rediculously silly to place an industry under the control of the federal government. Which is why I prefer to advocate democratizing industry as opposed to nationalizing it. I think we have to approach industrial governance the same way democrats approached civic governance. The underlying fact is that you dont need private ownership of an organization for it to function. We didnt need Kings to have civic order and we dont need plutocracy to have an orderly economy.

When people do not hold the government accountable on an issue such as these, government officials do things like give friends jobs in upper management. When this happens the performance is likely to go down. Also the decision to replace poorly performing upper management is done with the same kind of favoritism. There is evidence of this in both the Bush administration and Paul Martin's choices of appointees. There is also no competition between companies meaning that the incentive to become more efficient is limited just as is present in most monopolies. (Microsoft is an exception to the rule as they are competing against themselves).

Agreed, but I think it is innacruate to portray the private economy as being highly competitive. While more competitive than single state industries, the private economy is not that competitive. The power to make significant economic decisions is concentrated in the hands of very few people and there is a great deal of collusion that occurs amongst those people and thier institutions.

This is why I think any rational plan to reform industry should be aimed at producing more competition, and certainly not at consolidating industry under a government that is barely accountible to the people. I simply dont associate competition with a private economy. I think competition, like free markets should be the goal of any system and is much more likely to occurr under a more democratic structure.

The private market does a good job of ensuring that companies minimize expenses both by necessity and because of self interest.

Right. Minimizing expenses of the owners. The private market does a good job of ensuring that owners and not the public have thier expenses minimized. In fact companies want to maximise the expenses of the public. They want thier workers to work harder for less, customers to pay more for less, and government to provide more for less. The more they can get the public to expend, the less they have to expend and the larger the profit margin.

But the overall expenses of the society arent cut. Just who pays them and whether or not they show up on a balance sheet.

The example of a king being “a good governance structure” is not the same because there is no competition. A king doesn’t have to risk going out of business or being bought out for a low price. A kings wellbeing is also dependent on low costs of labour and high prices and is a price setter in both markets. The same could not be said about oil companies.

On the contrary. Kindoms had intense competition and could certainly go out of business and be bought out. Or more accurately could fall or be conquered by another Kindom. Monarchies, just like corporations had to face consequences and relied on an economy of power that had to be properly managed.

[lostinacause]

61. Regarding privatization costs

Numerous analysis of this topic have been done and from my understanding most of them point out that even while taking into account the reduction in wages, the biggest perceived cost of privatization, privatization is still worth while. This has been attributed largely to better allocation of capital especially the use of equipment.

I personally have not done much research on this topic as economic theory and the source through which I have learned about this provided me with sufficient insight that I have not doubted the validity the evidence.

I very strongly believe that any damages caused by a company’s action should be internalized, that is the company should pay for the cost of such damages.

[K-W]

68. Any attempt to quantify costs is folly from a societal stance.

Because so much of society is unquantifiable.

But I think the idea that a private organization can not only produce more for less, but also manage to fill up the bank accounts of the owners, to be rediculous on its face. You might as well build a perpetual motion machine.

[lostinacause]

62. Could you elaborate on what you believe this would entail.

[K-W]

69. Mainly, decentralizing power within the industry,

Breaking up cartels and consolidation, creating regulations that enforce a true free market, and moving towards more democratic workplaces.

Our economy should be less centralized and so should the power within economic institutions.

[lostinacause]

90. Could you further expand what you mean by a democratic workplace

[Silverhair]

9. Let's don't.

1. What make you think that gov't will do a better job, just because it is gov't?

2. Where are you going to go to get people who really understand oil to run the new agency. You will have to recruit from the oil companies - and I don't mean from the guagers and the roughnecks either. You will have to recuit from oil company's management. So you end up with the same people still running it.

[Burried News]

33. This is going to sound combative but it isn't meant to be.

Either big oil runs things or the government does. I suppose that one can say that the best we can hope for is that they compete with each other and we live our lives in the gaps. But I am of the opinion it is one or the other. Competition is always subverted in the long run - just see the better idea people (GE).

If it is the Cartel (which by the way includes big banks, road construction interests etc) OK - then lets eliminate the middle men - Senators, Congress, their staffs etc. Streamline the activity. Then we know from whence all shit flows because we get rid of the buffers and the operatives whose industry is CONFUSION. We won't even talk about the 'fear industry' operatives if it's OK with you. We will have to reinvent a political system - well not we - the Cartel Board will do it in their Policy and Procedure Manual.

Or as I think reasonable - Nationalize Oil - streamline the accounting, make the theft, graft and corruption more visible and open the Board meetings to the public (Assuming you can get Pat Roberts and the John Warners of the world out of the operation - big assumption I grant you).
We keep our current values of Democracy, Rights of the Individual, and all our hard won Constitutional Democracy definitions

Well let me end - this post is already too long. I've waited along time for this kind of discussion to surface anywhere.

[K-W]

42. OK

1. Because the government, while not very democratic is ten bazzillion times more democratic than the modern corporation.

2. I imagine the same people would run the technical side of the industry as do now. The only people that would lose thier jobs are those people who work to extract profit from the process.

[leveymg]

10. Failure to use Executive power to that effect in '79-80 sank Carter.

He was very close to making that decision in early 1980, but Energy Secretary Schlesinger and a couple other Cabinet officers talked him out of it.

Strong action to reel in the oil multinationals would likely have won Carter the 1980 election. Subsequent history would have been very different.

[Silverhair]

18. Carter was doomed.

Double digit inflation. Double digit unemployment. Americans held hostage in Iran. The Soviet empire had expanded. "Americans have an inordinate fear of communism" followed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The malaise thing. The killer rabbit jokes.

He was toast waiting to be buttered.

[leveymg]

28. Energy cost hikes were the major driving force behind the double-whammy

Also, the October Surprise covert operation by Bush Sr. and Bill Casey ensured that the hostages would not be released before Reagan's Inauguration. Carter should have had the ring-leaders of that rogue CIA operation arrested. Forget the "killer rabbit" jokes - there wouldn't have been any if Carter had decisively used the executive powers he had.

As for the Soviets, they screwed themselves by Imperial Overreach. So has Bush Jr.

[Silverhair]

47. The "October Surprise" is a conspiracy theory myth.

I have zero tolerance for CTs.

The double whammy was well underway before the Iranian revolution.

The Soviet Imperial overreach didn't cause their fall until 1989, Carter's loss was in 1980. In 1980 it looked like the Soviets were on a roll.

[rman]

53. Every exposed conspiracy starts with conspiracy theory.

If it were up to you no conspiracy would ever be uncovered.

[Silverhair]

59. That particular one has been investigated to death.

Not a bit of real evidence was ever found to support the allegations. Of course, for the dedicated CTer, that is just evidence for how great the cover-up was.

Most of the CTs that I have seen here on DU would require the laws of physics to be rewritten, or would require hoards of operatives all working together perfectly with NO errors. In other words, they are bullcrap.

The Iranians didn't need encouragement to hang on to the hostages. They were mad at Carter for giving the Shaw asylum. They let them go because they were afraid that Reagan would use serious military action, instead of a fouled-up raid.

If you are going to load your gun with CTs to fight the Republicans, then you are going to be shooting blanks at best, shooting other Progressives (By making them look silly by association.) at worst.

I have nothing but scorn for the tinfoil hat crowd.

[bvar22]

74. OH? And what proof do you offer to support YOUR particular theory?

Or do you hold YOURSELF to a lower standard than YOU demand of everyone else?

[Silverhair]

76. I remember the events.

My theory doesn't involve an uber-conspiracy.

I remember that Carter gave the Shaw asylum.

I remember the Iranians were very angry about that.

I remember Walter Cronkite ending each day of his news with a count of how many days that American had been held hostage.

I remember Reagan talking about the use of force against Iran.

I remember that Reagan had a definite cowboy reputation.

I remember the frantic negotiations between the election and Reagan's inauguration. It looked like the Iranians were trying to find a face saving way to release the hostages.

Get the idea? I remember what happened. No super CT needed. No tinfoil hat needed. Tinfoil hats cramp the brain.

[bvar22]

77. And how do you account for...

the secret negotiations between Poppy Bush and the Iranian terrorists that were carried out in DIRECT VIOLATION of the American Policy of non-negotiation with terrorists (TREASON)? Wouldn't that have involved a teeny weeny conspiracy?

You DO remember the Iran/Contra scandal?
How many were involved in THAT conspiracy?

AND, if you are only going to hold yourself to the standards of YOUR memory, how can you DEMAND more from anyone else?

[Silverhair]

78. If you want to believe that Carter lost because of

an uber-conspiracy - go ahead. I have already learned that for a CTer, the CT assumes most of the aspects of a religion.

Proof of ONE conspiracy DOES NOT equal proof of ALL CTs.

[bvar22]

81. Also true:

Discrediting ONE CT does NOT discredit them all.

I did NOT express my opinion about the Cater election loss.
I merely object to people who condemn Free Thinkers in order to advance THEIR OWN particular theory, especially when they don't hold themselves to the same standards they demand from everyone else.

[Silverhair]

83. When a "free thinkers" theory requires a rewrite

of the laws of physics, then that free thinker needs to come back to earth.

I have read many CTs here at DU that violate the laws of physics.

[RandomKoolzip]

97. But does the October Surprise theory "violate the laws of Physics?"

I'll admit that manmy of the more outlandish CT-promoters have done a great job of making any conspiracy theory look silly and impossible, but there are a lot of stories and leads out there that are worth investigating.

Man-made Tsunamis and sex rings run out of the White House, that kind of crap, is obvious bullshit and has made any honest investigation of the more plausible (i.e. non-pysics-law-breaking) theories, like the October Surprise, Wellstone's death, and RFK's murder seem like goofy paranoia mongering to the skeptical. That's sad.

[autorank]

115. So you guys are "coincidence theorists?"

I read this with some interest and amusement. Good give and take but let me ask you this...what major crimes are committed by coincidence? Major crimes, in the broadest sense of the term, are committed by a group of people for their own benefit. The S&L crisis, the Wall Street scandals, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the WMD story, etc. etc. Who would not call these a conspiracy? They were all planned by a group of people in violation of the law to provide benefits to that group and those the group represents.

It's really tedious to see "CT" show up as a dismissive term when this is how it's done. The only people who act otherwise to commit crimes are small time crooks and serial killers.

Wake up, there is a real history here and elsewhere of lie after lie told by the "ruling" party, a conspiracy, and in the case of * and company, a confederacy of dunces, to borrow a phrase.

Here is one example: Bush had a document in the pipeline warning about a major terrorist attack involving airplanes. Did he get it? Did Condi read it? What was the story put out to the public? Was Condi lying at her press conference saying they'd never anticipated planes being "slammed" into tall buildings. That was the outer manifestation of a conspiracy to cover up government malfeasance.

So if you want to be a coincidence theorist, the "random" workings of American politics which usually screw the people, have at it. A responsible evaluation of events around us necessarily involves a close eye on the "back story" and unstated, but quite real, objectives of the perpetrators of the lie.

[RandomKoolzip]

123. You're totally misinterpreting my post.

What I thought was sad was the dismissal of all conspiracy theories simply because some of them are beyond plausibility.

I believe in LIHOP, I believe that there were all sorts of shenanigans and misdeeds surrounding JFK's death, RFK's death, MLK's death, Wellstone's death, etc, the Iran-Contra scandals, The CIA's hand in covert assassinations and schemes all over the world and domestically, Enron's hand in the Calfornia reacll, to name just a few of many.

I do NOT believe in UFO's, psychic phenomena, Man-maded Tsunamis, HAARP, chemtrails, statues that drink milk, religious miracles, and nor do I believ that the Bush family is behind every single bad thing that happens on Earth.

I guess you could say that I believe in a balanced mix of coincidence and conspiracy.

There's stuff that's just too outside the realm of possibility to take stock in (the second list), while the first list ought to be investigated to its fullest. The trouble is that a lot of people lump the two lists together, as if one cannot believe that JFK was murdered by someone other than Oswald without believing in Bigfoot. And from the other direction, there are those who think that if you don't believe in Bigfoot, then you're some infromation-crushing fascist bullyboy "coincidence theorist" who has blinders on to the REAL malfeasance, like JFK.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[welshTerrier2]

124. conspiracy theories ...

i completely agree with what you wrote ...

terms like "conspiracy theories" get tossed around a little too carelessly for my tastes ...

the term is used to label those who "question the common wisdom" as outlandish kooks and extremists ... but look at the other side of the coin ...

those who have any tendency whatsoever to accept "the establishment's truths" often do not, and cannot, really know the truth ... much of what they accept as true is based on faith and/or inadequate knowledge ... this is not to argue that what they espouse is ultimately wrong but rather to question whether they can a make a legitimate justification for espousing their position in the first place ... the problem is one of process; not conclusion ...

in response to, for example, 9/11 conspiracies, i've heard all sorts of pretty lame reasoning ... in response to speculations i've raised about LIHOP and MIHOP, i've been confronted with such insights as "oh, c'mon, do you really believe bush is that evil?" ... or, "don't you know there were Democrats on the 9/11 Commission too?" ...

it seems to me that where darkness exists and light is not allowed to shine, skepticism and theories trump "oh, c'mon" everytime ...

[autorank]

125. My appologies, too many HAARP waves around me (LOL).

The :tinfoilhat: isn't working like it used to...that's what happens when you buy the store brand instead of Reynolds!

One serious point, the truth is where ever you can find it; maybe the middle, probably most itmes, but anywhere.

Look at what Krugman did today in the NYT - mentioned and talked about the "f" word, as in election FRAUD. Watch how the go after him as a CT.

Sorry if I was off base on your opinions :spank:

[RandomKoolzip]

126. No problem.

:thumbsup:

That Krugman article was fuggin' sweet, BTW.

[T Town Jake]

116. "Free Thinkers"....

...horseshit. Most of the silly CT crowd are wound up in groupthink straight-jackets so tight that they make right-wingers look like champions of the Enlightenment by comparison.

Your pitiful offerings in this thread are no exception. Peddle it to the quiescent lemmings of the :tinfoilhat: crowd who lap that sort of ridiculous thing up, willfully and ignorantly.

[T Town Jake]

117. Gratified to see that...

...at least TWO of us have a working memory of what was happening back in 1980.

Your analysis is historically correct, and quite right.

[T Town Jake]

Gratified to see that...

...at least TWO of us have a working memory of what was happening back in 1980.

Your analysis is historically correct, and quite right.

[T Town Jake]

118. Gratified to see that...

...at least TWO of us have a working memory of what was happening back in 1980.

Your analysis is historically correct, and quite right.

[T Town Jake]

119. Gratified to see that...

...at least TWO of us have a working memory of what was happening back in 1980.

Your analysis is historically correct, and quite right.

[flaminbats]

67. Soviet imperial overreach was another conspiracy myth..

but wait..communism doesn't work, democracy does. :eyes: If Afghanistan was really the beginning of the end for Soviets, why haven't we learned from their mistakes?

[Silverhair]

72. Different topic. I was originally talking about Carter.

Then about CTs.

[flaminbats]

79. the malaise theory has been around far too long..

Entire ideologies are often built on CTs and myths. The domino theory was the central justification for our war in Vietnam. Supply side economics was the foundation behind arguments for deregulation, huge taxcuts, and massive military spending.

Republicans have used Carter as a political whipping boy for years. They used his "malaise speech" to argue that voters considered him weak and unpatriotic. Republicans used stagflation to argue that big government ultimately resulted in increased rationing, longer gas lines, and high unemployment. Republicans argued that deregulation would result in lower prices, lower unemployment, and lower deficits from a booming economy.

I agree that destroying these CT's is the best way to sink our opponents arguments. It is always important to point out..that if not for Carter's diplomacy, all of those hostages would have probably been killed. Carter put the lives of these hostages above his own political well-being. Carter could have easily slashed taxes, invaded Iran, and poured trillions into the cold war..but we would still be suffering the consequences today!!

[leveymg]

80. Conspiracy theory? I suggest you read Gary Sick's book. Then,

to fill out your education, start in on these reports by Robert Parry. If you don't know who either of the aforementioned gentlemen are, then this information probably will not be of any use to you.

The October Surprise
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/denied/octsurprise.htm

Search Site

Tell Us


Robert Parry has written a number of stories pursuing the strong evidence that Reagan and Bush made an all-out effort to sabotage Jimmy Carter's efforts to win the release of the Iranian-held hostages before the November election, the episode known as the October Surprise.
In 1995, Parry became privy to a host of files that had been locked in a deserted bathroom in DC. Read about what he found when he started going through these files in this series of stories (descriptions from Parry's October Surprise page:

The Russian Report -- What the KGB knew about the October Surprise mystery, but the American people didn't. (12-11-95)

The Ladies Room Secrets -- How historic secrets about this political era were recovered from a remote Capitol Hill wash room. (12-21-95)

Bill Casey's Iranian -- What FBI wiretaps captured about secret payments from BCCI and a Bush-connected lawyer to an Iranian "double-agent."(12-31-95)

Follow the Money -- How some of the world's most secretive and powerful players joined forces to fix the pivotal 1980 election. (1-15-96)

Saddam's 'Green Light' -- What a "top secret" report reveals about the origins of the bloody Iran-Iraq War. (1-31-96)

Where's Bill Casey -- How the national news media and Congress "debunked" the October Surprise allegations by adopting bogus alibis for Bill Casey. (2-14-96)

Bush & a CIA Power Play -- What CIA veterans and former CIA director George Bush did to regain The White House in the 1980s. (2-29-96)
Lies Spun into History -- How absurd alibis became part of the October Surprise historical record. (3-14-96)

October Surprise: Finally, Time for the Truth? -- Seven years ago, Jamshid Hashemi, an Iranian businessman and CIA operative, broke his silence about the October Surprise controversy. Now, with more and more public figures corroborating parts of the story, Jamshid Hashemi is revealing new details about this ultimate dirty trick and the CIA. (5/5/97)

October Surprise: Time for Truth? (Part 2) -- The enduring mystery of George Bush and alleged Paris meetings with Iranians in 1980: Did he go or did he stay? (5/19/97)

Earl Brian: Reagan's 'Scandal Man' Off to Jail -- In the early 1990s, the word of Ronald Reagan's friend Earl Brian helped debunk two major scandals. But now, Brian's credibility has collapsed with his federal fraud conviction. (8/25/97)

[Silverhair]

84. Gary Sicks book has been thoughly debunked. NT

[bvar22]

85. Debunked or NOT,

It is ironic that you would pick this particular period to try to support an argument that uber conspiracies do NOT exist.
The Iran Contra scandal is the best PROOF in American History that UBER CONSPIRACIES ARE REAL!
Iran-Contra was actually multiple REAL UBER CONSPIRACIES rolled into one.

*The secret Intelligence Agency's UBER conspiracy to supply arms to Iran terrorists IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF US POLICY (treason).

*The UBER conspiracy to fund Central American Anti-Democratic forces IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF AMERICAN POLICY (treason).

*The executive UBER conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and subvert the Congressional Inquiry.

*The SUCCESSFUL executive UBER Conspiracy to FIREWALL the damage from Iran Contra by supplying Executive Pardons to prevent any further unraveling of the facts.

ALL of these were UBER Conspiracies involving MANY HI-LEVEL members of the Federal Government!
NONE would have been uncovered if that dumbass Spook-Wannabee (Hausenfraus?) hadn't fallen out of a plane in Central America.

Bush the Elder (with the help of Clinton and the Democrats?) successfully prevented further investigations and exposures at the end of Bush the Elder's reign. ANY and ALL claims of "thoroughly Investigated" or "DEBUNKED" are BOGUS when examined in this light!
WE DON'T KNOW!!! We DO KNOW that there was MORE THERE! Bush* would NOT have issued ALL those pre-emptive pardons if they weren't STILL HIDING something!


Uber Conspiracies don't exist?????!!!

[Silverhair]

86. Obvious CTs are very important to your belief structure.

Occasionally there will be a real conspiracy. That does NOT mean the rest of the CTs that one finds here amount to anything. I am not going to fall into looking for a CT to explain everything that I don't like.

[leveymg]

89. Debunked? Please cite.

I gave you a bushel full of Parry's material on the October Surprise for debunking. Please start by giving something back other than indignation about "conspiracy theories" and "bunk".

Nobody's going to take your argument seriously, Silverhair, unless you bring some substance to the table.:eyes:

[eridani]

108. No it hasn't. So there! n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. Let's see... give the Republicans direct control of Big Oil...

Nope.

[K-W]

17. Look at the big picture.

At the moment Big Oil is controlled by the same people who control the Republicans.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

103. All the more reason not to nationalize it. n/t

[kentuck]

15. Is it possible ?

What would stop them from moving to another country, since they are so "international"? However, I think we should stop giving them tax breaks and I could see how we could make it a negative for them to raise prices above a certain limit by adding an addtional tax when prices reach a certain level. They definitely need to be regulated in some manner...by someone much smarter than I...

[K-W]

21. Under nationalization they would not be able to move. EOM

[randr]

16. A great suggestion that needs to spread

A the necessities of life: air, water, food, drugs, and, yes, energy, need goverence to insure equal and fair distribution along with FAIR PRICEING.
We the people, in order to create a more just society, have every right and responsibility to take control of our lives.

[Burried News]

20. A long overdue discussion and at it's core is human rights.

Eisenhower is reported to have said you can't get in power without big oil behind you and you can't stay in power without big oil supporting you.

I don't know about that but to me it is clear we have an oil based foreign policy and that oil is a critical resource. Without oil our military machine comes to a standstill. Forgetting profiteering, price gouging and interference in the domestic political process; A critical resource vital to national defense and security needs to be under direct governmental control. The survival of our nation state depends on it.

As things stand now, the loyalty of the oil interests is to the oil cartel and the Republican Party has become the means to disguise that fact while serving as the vehicle to implement cartel goals and objectives. America will become a fiction. It is already a fiction as a Republic but it may also become one as an Empire - existing merely as a convenient concept to mobilize military force when Cartel interests are threatened.

A stretch yes - but our consciousness needs to expand on this issue. The world is changing in so many ways. We need to understand that the concept of Nation State is dynamic. They are not ordained to exist and the legal constructs that have been built around them over hundreds of years can all be washed away.

This is not an issue of Capitalism, Marxism, Socialism etc. - it is an issue of law, order and freedom in the broadest sense.

[welshTerrier2]

25. very well said !!!

"it is an issue of FREEDOM in the broadest sense" ... that's exactly what this post is about ...

you wrote: "Without oil our military machine comes to a standstill" ... and, as you also observed, proving the symbiotic relationship, you might call it an incestuous relationship, between the US government and big oil, "existing merely as a convenient concept to mobilize military force when Cartel interests are threatened" ...

good post, Burried News ... very well said ...

[David__77]

23. Oil, energy and mining companies should be state-owned.

These resources should belong to the people and should not be privately appropriated.

[calimary]

105. Considering how oil infuses so much of our necessities of life, it

should be redefined as a public utility.

The profiteering for sheer profiteering's sake has to be taken out somehow, because essential resources and supplies on which people's lives depend should not be held hostage by profiteering. Luxury items are one thing. But something as essential to survival should be taken out of the equation.

I'm no economist either. But if it were mine to do, I'd slap on a windfall profits tax so fast it'd make big oil go into convulsions. People have, in the last couple of decades or so, started a drumbeat against unions - their excesses, their lopsided power, their coddling of workers, blah-blah-blah. And NO ONE speaks up to remind those who are clearly too young to remember (or just never bothered to read 19th and 20th century American History) that unions came about out of necessity - because workers were seriously and egregiously taken advantage of. The rights we take for granted now - a work week of so many hours, safe and reasonable working conditions, breaks and vacations, pensions, collective bargaining, non-exploitation of children, sick leave, health insurance, workers' comp - ALL that and more - were brought about because of UNIONS. Unions rose because workers were being exploited, forced to work in lousy, unsafe conditions, children worked in those same conditions, children worked horribly oppressive hours, workers had NO protections whatsoever, had to work for whatever they could get, and were so seriously stomped upon that they finall rose up. Yes, certainly, by now, many unions have overstepped and earned the bad name and bad reps some of them have gained for themselves. And the pirates and profiteers have been allowed to rise, like a pendulum swing. BUT - if THOSE excesses continue unchecked, the pendulum is liable to start swinging again - and then, the power elite would be well to remember the example of the Romanoffs of czarist Russia.

Long, windy way of saying unions would not have been necessary to begin with - IF ONLY the corporations and industries of the time were more reasonable with their workers, and voluntarily gave them rights and decent working conditions, protections, and pay structures. Big business was eventually FORCED, by its own greed and excesses, to capitulate. If this situation now keeps up as it is, complicated by more and more Americans being sent to die for a lie in Iraq - basically for oil so bush and his cabal can make more money and gain more power and world dominance - they risk provoking a similar upheaval. Big business traditionally seems unwilling to do what is responsible to the community from which it springs unless COMPELLED to do so by the government.

[Syncronaut Seven]

27. It is after all, a matter of national security.

.

[K-W]

29. Id rather democratize Big Oil than nationalize it.

But I would take nationalization over profiteering.

[rman]

32. What's the difference between nationalization and democratization?

In a healthy democracy, is not what "the nation" wants, the same thing as what "the people" want?

And if it's not a healthy democracy, neither nationalization nor democratization will be to the benefit of the people,

[K-W]

37. You are mostly right.

And if it's not a healthy democracy, neither nationalization nor democratization will be to the benefit of the people,

I dont agree.

As far as democratization, I cant see where you are coming from at all. I think democratization would be extremely beneficial to people who lack democracy.

As far as nationalization, that isnt neccessarily true. It depends entirely on the situation. If the alternative to an undemocratic national government is an even less democratic form of governance, then nationalization might end up being beneficial even if the end result is far from ideal.

We should be working to make industry responsive to the people, whatever the best way to do that is. If nationalization is a part of that so be it, but the goal should be democracy.

[rman]

51. A non-democratic government is never to the benefit of the people

in whatever way such government arranges things, and whatever those arrangements are called, it is always to the benefit of the wealthy powerful few and to the detriment of the working have-nots.

The one exception i can think of is Cuba. Castro is probably better of then most there, but no-one there dies of hunger or disease. Pretty much everything is under state control and democracy there is marginal.

Besides that, i do in principal agree with you (and the OP) - i think all the commons should be under common control.

But if the question about nationalizing the oil industry is a response to the rising prices of oil and fuel, then i say: it is way to late for that. If and when we get our planet back, there will be opportunity to implement true democracy and all kinds of political systems that benefit the many.

In the mean time it will help to incite public discussion about it, but i think it should not be focused on oil.

[K-W]

56. Right, but if the only options are 2 undemocratic governments

one might be more beneficial than the other.

It all depends on the specific situation and the alternatives.

[welshTerrier2]

34. democratize?

please elaborate on what you mean by "democratize" ...

what really needs to happen, regardless of the extent to which you ultimately choose to regulate or control big oil, is that those who seek to represent us need to begin the long journey of telling the American people the truth about just how corrupt our institutions have become ...

we can discuss "democratizing" and "nationalizing" but any change is predicated on educating the American people about how democracy should work and how it has been working ... we really need to get away from the notion that this is "un-American" ...

it seems to me this is the most American thing we could do ... we should be preaching the ideals of our Founding Fathers that were embodied in the Constitution and embodied in their fight to free themselves from tyranny ... what could be more American than that? criticizing the current government for failing to live up to these American ideals is by no stretch of the imagination "un-American" ...

if by "democratizing" you mean giving more regulatory control and oversight to the American people and their representatives, i'm totally on board with that ... as i suggested earlier, things like outlawing paid lobbyists or significantly restricting them and also making major reforms in our campaign finance laws will go a long way towards helping with the incestuous relationship between mega-corporations and politicians desperately dependent on their financial contributions ...

but in the end, i don't believe we will ever be able to tame this beast ... there's just too much money and too much power and the revolving door between industry and government is no help either ... looking at more moderate reforms as a starting point is fine with me but i believe in the end, if we want "the power" to work for the American people instead of those who currently have "the power", we are going to have to go further than just tinkering with regulatory changes ...

[K-W]

46. I agree. EOM

[rman]

31. With Big Oil practically being the government, what'd be the point?

Do you think anything will change for the better with Bush in direct control of all the oil imports?

[welshTerrier2]

36. take away the profit motive and ...

this isn't about bush being in control ... i think big oil has seeped into our government over many, many years ... it's just gotten much worse with bush and his cabal of oilmen ...

and i do think that if the profit motive is removed and big oil's shareholders can't make a buck, things will change for the better ...

the question would become, what would be the incentive to buy and direct federal energy policy, and foreign policy, if the profit motive were removed?

[lostinacause]

38. What would the incentive be to produce oil at all?

Many of the same problems would still exist and there would be a direct connection between policy and "oil profits". Also as I said earlier nationalized companies are not always that efficient.

[rman]

40. It'd be in effect the government and by extension "the people"

who'd be producing oil.
Motivation: we all need/want oil.
Incentive: a decent salary.

[lostinacause]

41. And what is a government’s motivation?

It would be after all some agency in the government directing all decisions, wouldn’t it?

[welshTerrier2]

44. what is the government's motivation for anything it does?

what is the government's motivation to provide public education?
what is the motivation to build roads or train the military?

how would meeting the nation's energy needs be any different?

[lostinacause]

55. Each of these that you have listed are areas where issues arise

when they are done privately. Education should be done in a fair a balanced way (and not fair and balanced like Fox News). Certain value comes from learning things that the market would not necessarily provide and that individuals would not necessarily seek. Roads and other infrastructure such as public transit, if privatized, would be monopolies and would lead to pricing problems. Much of the maintenance and construction is done by private companies to save money. There are obvious reasons why the military is provided by governments. There is little that government involvement in the oil industry would do to solve the issues with oil prices.

If you look at rationality models, governments tend to have the most internal problems with waste and poor decisions.

[rman]

52. A government’s motivation should be that of the people

If not, then representation is not functioning well.

[lostinacause]

57. Unfortinatly that does not always happen.

Even if people voted rationally and the government listened to the vote it would not happen. It is not rational for an individual to acquire the information necessary to make a completely informed decision about the policies. People have jobs, families and leisure that are often a priority and understandably so.

[brentspeak]

75. To lower the cost of oil so that national security is maintained

Why would there need to be a profit motive to oversee the production and distribution of oil within the United States? Is there much of a profit motive in municipal-controlled water companies? Not much. In any case, government employees working in some hypothetical oil agency would simply get paid just like any other federal employee.

[welshTerrier2]

43. let's try this again ...

maybe i'm missing your point but you don't seem to be responsive to mine ...

fine, nationalized companies may not be that efficient ... i'm happy to acknowledge that point ... but efficiency is not the objective i'm seeking ...

you stated: there would be a direct connection between policy and "oil profits" ... is there a direct connection between public education and "education profits" ... the US government would be hiring people with experience in the oil industry to manage this "life blood" segment of our economy .. when you talk about a direct connection to "oil profits", what profits are you talking about? governments don't make "profits" ...

the whole point of this thread is NOT to tinker around with the oil industry to make it more efficient or to lower gas prices at the pump or to find ways to produce more oil to meet the nation's needs ... the whole point is that our government is directing both foreign and domestic policy for the benefit of big oil (and other mega-corporations) because it is in the pocket of greedy oil interests ... when we go to war, we do so to serve these corporate masters ...

what is needed is a reclaiming of our government and its institutions for the sole benefit of the American people ... this would include NOT engaging in wars promoted by the oil industry to jack-up their profits ... it would include NOT rolling back environmental regulations to jack-up their profits ... it would include NOT pursuing a fossil fuel energy policy with all sorts of incentives to big oil to jack-up their profits ...

if you don't accept the fundamental premise that our government has been purchased by and is controlled by big oil, nationalizing the industry cannot possibly make any sense ... my view is that until we take away the profit motive, we will not be able to get our government to serve the nation's best interests ...

this is not about "oil markets" and their machinations; this is about fundamental democracy ...

[K-W]

48. Nothing is always that efficient.

Particularly not our current system.

[lostinacause]

58. You would be surprised. Unfortunately the gains from efficiency

are concentrated amoung a few and when policies are created that have free and efficient wealth transfers such as taxation vs tradable emission permits the one which concentrates wealth is chosen.

[rman]

82. Not only are gains from efficiency concentrated,

also much of the efficiency is achieved by reducing costs.
One way to reduce costs is to make use of cheap labor, or to create cheaper labor, ie by lobbying the government not to increase minimum wages.

Generally corporations will try to "externalize" costs, ie the cost of environmental pollution and worker safety. So they lobby for lowering of pollution standards and lowering worker rights, then pollution standards and worker rights are lowered, and the corporations make more profit.

There are many things that are good for the economy but bad for people.

[lostinacause]

91. These are actually bad for the economy. Harm is caused by them and it

should be taken into account when considering the strength of the economy.

[rman]

94. Judging by what they are doing, they don't seem to understand that. nt

[lostinacause]

107. Or choose are to ignore it.

(It is also possible that are correct in some of their choices. Excessive pollution standards also weaken the economy as the cost of abating pollution can very high. It requires a great deal of skill and knowledge to be able to evaluate the most efficient point. I don’t even claim to have a clue if pollution standards are too relaxed or too excessive.)

[rman]

114. There's plenty of evidence of severe polution all over the US

and elsewhere.
I have no sources at hand but it should not be to hard to find.
The fact that it is never mentioned in the MSM doesn't mean it does not exist.

[lostinacause]

121. Personally I don't trust the media to accuratly deterime if there is too

much pollution. They do not have the education or ability to do such research even if they wanted to. If you want to find that information you have to look primarily to academic papers.

[MadHound]

45. Better yet, let us just kick Big Oil to the curb

And while it could take some time, it could be done.

Buy a wood stove, with catalytic convertor, for heating. Buy only hybrid cars, electric cars, or diesels to run biodiesel. Set up solar panels and wind turbines. Insulate your house and adjust the thermostat. Start growing at least part of your own food. Use mass transport, a bike, or walk.

If we got even half of Americans doing this, Big Oil would be DOA, and this country and world would be much better off.

[Hidden Stillness]

50. A Regulated Monopoly, Like Water

I just made an argument of this kind yesterday on yet another thread about how we are being choked to death by gas price-gougung. It is not an extreme solution, as actually many more industries used to be safely regulated this way than are now, so it would not be new, it would be a return to something that never should have been deregulated. You don't need scare words like "socialism," although I don't know if anyone has used it on this thread. The simple answer is to treat all natural resources the way I believe only water still is: as a "regulated monopoly," as they call it--all public-service utility, no profit motive, no advertising, no stockholders other than the American tax-paying public. It is not a change to something new, but a return to the wisdom, yet again, of the New Deal generation that really knew what was what. They even originally regulated the broadcast industry as a public utility. This is the only way democracy works--the people control, as a society.

[Burried News]

63. Everybody got so into this we forgot to nominate this thread.

[welshTerrier2]

64. that does it !!!

you're all going on report !!

[bvar22]

66. Certainly, the Energy Industry should be REGULATED!

The Energy Industry HAS proved that it is incapable of operating in the Public Interest of the American Citizen. I EXPECT Industry to operate at a profit but over 40% per quarter used to be called Gouging, and a Windfall Profits Tax would have prevented them from raping the American Public.

Re-Regulation of these Industries SHOULD be the FIRST PLANK in the Democratic Party Platform!

*Energy

*Transportation

*Utilities

*Banking

*Investment

*Insurance

*Credit

***HealthCare SHOULD be Nationalized!****

The de-regulation of these Industries has PROVED to be a disaster for the Working American.

[welshTerrier2]

70. i would strongly support increased REGULATION but ...

that would not necessarily address the problem of big oil's ability to direct our foreign policy for their own gain ...

i am far less worried about high prices, price gouging etc. than i am about allowing their corrupting influence in the halls of our government ...

what we have now leads to inept legislators, imperialist war-driven foreign policy, and a domestic policy that views conservation and investment in alternative energy sources as adversaries ...

Price control mechanisms, e.g. windfall profits taxes, would be helpful but would do little to address the loss of our democracy and our government's unwillingness to put the best interests of the country ahead of the greedy interests of big oil's shareholders ...

[bvar22]

71. You have an important point.

ALL of the Huge Global Corporations have escaped the limitations of Represenative Governments through the Free Trade Treaties. A HANDFUL of VERY RICH CorpoExecs are the LOUDEST voice in Global Politics and are a threat to Represenative Governments throughout the World.

[welshTerrier2]

73. some have been distracted ...

well said, bvar22 !!!

some in this thread have missed this essential point ... this thread is not about the effectiveness of government run operations versus private corporations ... it is not about retaliating for high gas prices ...

it is about fundamental democracy ... whether some see my proposition as an infringement on capitalism or whether they see it as raw socialism, its goal is not some abstraction of economic theory ... sitting at the core of my argument is simple, representative government ...

when market forces, profit driven market forces, are able to effect the direction of federal, governmental policy they seek and that policy does a disservice to the country, something must be changed ... the "yeah, but you're going too far" crowd is quick to jump in with their technocratic, bureaucratic tinkering at the margins ... we get calls for increased disclosure requirements, increased auditing, campaign finance restrictions on corporations and their major stockholders, even restrictions of lobbyists ... i fully support each and every one of these ideas ...

and if some are more comfortable trying them as a "phase I", i say fine ... show me the magic ... but in the end, this power is so entrenched, it is so unilaterally focussed on profits at the expense of anything that stands in its way, that i believe any solution short of taking full control of that power will ultimately fail ...

and so, in industries so critical to the national interest, industries that have bought our government and directed its policies for far too long, i see no choice ... could this lead to inefficiencies in the delivery of oil to the public? who knows ... but there just is no other course available ... either we have a government that serves the people or we have a government that serves narrow commercial interests ...

in the end, i would probably go further and tell you that i really don't believe capitalism and democracy can co-exist ... but for this thread, i will stop at the blatantly corrupting abuses of big oil ... their greed is leading us into a global conflict that we cannot win ... they will not yield control willingly; it's our job to stop them ...

[Hippo_Tron]

87. Can't we just break up the monopolies Teddy Roosevelt style?

I think that we need to be cautious about saying that certain industries need to be nationalized. Giving the government a grip on our primary energy source may not be in our best interests. What if we accidentally elect some lunatic who wants to turn the US into a totalitarian state (I know, I know we already did except for the "elect" part). Having control over our energy is a great way to have control over us. I'll admit, the system right now might as well be the same thing because the "private" oil industry and the government are buddies. But if we actually had a functioning system without legalized bribes, then I think that a private oil industry (one without monopolies and actual competition) would be in our best interest.

Healthcare, on the other hand, is an industry that absolutely needs to be nationalized because it is in the peoples' best interest and it wouldn't give too much power to the government.

[welshTerrier2]

88. trust-busting ...

the primary objective should be to build our institutions in such a way that democracy flourishes ... when money and power is as centralized as it is now, i don't believe that any amount of "tinkering at the margins" will ultimately succeed ...

but perhaps we could break up Big Oil ... perhaps smaller companies, companies forced to compete, would be less able to direct national domestic and foreign policy ... first and foremost, it's important to educate Americans that this must be our objective regardless of what methods we choose to achieve it ...

the question, with a less centralized oil industry, still is whether it would achieve positive results ... after all, there is already competition in the oil industry ... and one might even go further to suggest that, while competition might put a little "pep in your step", monopolies or oligopolies do benefit from certain economies of scale ... for example, only one CEO is needed instead of 3 or 4 or more ... only one marketing campaign needs to be developed instead of several ... and so on ... so, from an efficiency and cost perspective, which is NOT my central point in this thread btw, one might see certain benefits with a more centralized industry ...

and then there's the AT&T break-up ... yeah, it seemed good for awhile ... but haven't we been seeing increased centralization recurring in the phone industry? a recent court ruling just said that (if i remember this correctly) mega DSL companies need not share their lines and bandwidth with smaller companies ... i guess the point is that if we all go charging up San Juan Hill yelling "bully", are we doing anything beyond cutting off the tops of the weeds without pulling them up by their roots?

which leads to nationalizing the oil industry ... could this be an approach to having our cake and eating it too? it would allow the exploration for and the production of oil to remain centralized which could yield greater efficiencies than a broken up industry might yield ... if would also preclude the "un-trust-busting" that we may be seeing in the phone industry as long as oil remains nationalized ...

and finally, absent a profit-motive, which some view as a negative because the incentive to produce could be lessened (but is that true?), perhaps there would be far less resistance (in the government) to programs that promote conservation or the shift to alternative energy sources ... the concern here is that as long as a profit motive exists, there's an incentive (i.e. motive) to control government policy ... your trust-busting suggestion weakens the means to do this but does not lessen the motivation ...

in the end, i would totally support a more rigorous enforcement of the Sherman and Clayton Acts and any other law that would weaken the centralized power wielded by such a dangerous industry ... my approach is to start with educating the public (i.e. big oil has corrupted our democracy) ... i am willing to try any and all ideas to try to resolve the problem ... if we start with trust-busting, fine ... as i said in an earlier post "show me the magic" ... if it's campaign finance reform or more restrictions on lobbyists, great ... show me the magic ... if we can solve the problem with less invasive measures, i'm totally on board ... but, sadly, i'm afraid that certain sources of power, for example Big Oil, ultimately are so entrenched and so abusive and have had a stranglehold on the reins of government for so long, that more drastic measures will be required to achieve the goals many of us seek ...

decentralizing Big Oil is fine as long as you're willing to sign on to going further if the ultimate objectives of better democracy are not achieved ...

[rhett o rick]

95. Just exactly how do u propose ripping the power away from the rich. nt

[welshTerrier2]

96. start by telling the American public the truth about their democracy n/t

[rhett o rick]

106. How do u propose to do that? The rich have unlimited resources to tell the

public lies. Exactly how do we combat that. Even if we managed to do that, then what. The rich and powerful completely control the Republican Party and have a huge hand in controlling the Demo Party. Why are so few Demo politicians speaking out? Their bread and butter comes from the same corporations that own the Repubs. If this Country looses the middle class, like many other countries, it won't hurt most of the Demo politicians. They are mostly rich.

[Douglas Carpenter]

98. politically viable or not (at this time) it's a good battle cry

Power yields power when they know they have to cut their loses. Their is nothing extremist about wanting something so powerful under democratic-control of all the people.

What is extremist is the current situation when (as some other posters pointed out) big oil has nationalized the whole country and much of the world.


_______________________________________________________


A True Voice of Opposition
--A Voice for Working People
--Not the Elite--
http://www.bernie.org/issues.asp

___________________________________

[BlueEyedSon]

99. The resource is not here, the companies are international/multinational.

[Peace Patriot]

101. "...with all the current fervor for 'free' markets and good...

old fashioned capitalism..." --welshTerrier2

Is that like "all the current fervor" for the war in Iraq, back in 2002-2003?

58% of the American people opposed the war in Iraq BEFORE the invasion. Feb. '03. I'll never forget that stat. Before all the lies were exposed; before the full horror and costs were known. 58%! Across the board in all polls.

There was a brief dip in that opposition in the few weeks of the invasion--with US troops at highest risk--then it went right back up to nearly 60%, and is over 60% today.

Of that 58%, about half opposed the war outright. The other half would only approve a UN peacekeeping mission (world consensus), not a pre-emptive, unilateral war by Bush.

What this means is that nearly 60% of the American people DIDN'T TRUST Bush way back THEN--and didn't want his war. They saw through is crap THEN.

Of the 40% or so who supported the war, we don't know what their level of enthusiasm was, but I would guess that about half believed that it was something that had to be done but weren't crazy about the idea--probably including most military and their families (the military mostly hates war). That leaves 20% of yahoos, chickenhawks, and war lovers--a few neocons, Christian jihadists, war profiteers and Rush Limbaugh dittoheads. A small minority who felt "fervor."

Yet, I'll bet you that many people, if asked to describe the mood of the country in 2002-2003, would describe it as "seized by war fever."

The truth: The "fervor" for this war was almost entirely manufactured by war profiteering corporate news monopolies, who created an ILLUSION of "war fever" by giving that 20% of war enthusiasts a BIG TRUMPET with which to constantly blast their views to the near exclusion of all other views on our monopolized public airwaves.

An ILLUSION.

So, I suspect that "all the current fervor for 'free' markets and good old fashioned capitalism" has just about the same reality as enthusiasm for Bush's war--that is, almost none. A few robber barons, greedheads and the super rich are VERY ENTHUSIASTIC about so-called "free markets" enabling them to become billionaires by using sweatshop labor in Saipan and Cambodia, for instance--but MOST PEOPLE see this as PREDATORY CAPITALISM, and oppose it, but have been so disempowered and disenfranchised that their voices--the voices of the great majority--are completely ignored.

When 50,000 people went into the streets in Seattle in 1999--labor unions, teachers, human rights groups, religious groups, environmental groups, small farmers, small business people, and numerous representatives of the MAJORITY--and SHUT DOWN the World Trade Organization for its anti-democratic practices, the corporate news monopolies portrayed it as a riot. I was there. It was ENTIRELY PEACEFUL--50,000 people!--until the massive police force in Darth Vader costume (on orders of the Clinton administration) started beating people up and aiming pepper spray hoses at the faces of peaceful seated demonstrators, and arresting and brutalizing thousands of people, and invading local neighborhoods and pepper-spraying and manhandling CITY COUNCILMEN! And even then, the "riot" (breaking a few windows, burning a few trash cans) was the work of a tiny group of upset youngsters whom the OTHERS tried to stop. But guess what gets featured on CNN?

THAT event--that amazing event in Seattle, the shutdown of the WTO--is how the MAJORITY feels about predatory capitalism. And the completely distorted portrayal of it in the corporate news media was a prime example of the kind of ILLUSION-MAKING that they use to create an entirely false picture of what the "nation" thinks.

I'll bet you money that, if it were up to the people--to the vast majority--that is, if we had anything close to true democracy--we...

--would be at peace with the world now, not at war
--would be treating "terrorism" as a law enforcement and intelligence problem, not a military problem
--would be seeing far LESS "terrorism" because our policies would be more just to others; diplomacy, generosity, respect for international law and a peaceful attitude would head most of it off
--and would have converted our entire economy to alternative energy by now, among many other people-friendly, progressive policies.

How to get this done? Very simple...

Throw the Bushite electronic voting machine companies who tabulated all the votes in the last election using SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, out of the "election business" NOW! It's still doable. And we must do it NOW!

And, after we do that--after we have restored our right to vote--bust up the corporate news monopolies!

[welshTerrier2]

102. really great post !!

thanks for posting this ... it's always important to keep faith with an understanding that so much of what is the "common wisdom" is in essence media-manufactured propaganda ...

and i very much agree with your points about what would happen if we had "true democracy" (no war, less terrorism, alternative energy) ...

my comments about the "current fervor", however, may be more than an illusion ... i sincerely hope i'm dead wrong about that ... i based that comment on numerous discussions i've had right here on DU with people who consider themselves "progressives" ... when i've talked about things like capping wealth when it leads to sufficient power to abuse our democratic institutions or i've talked about punitive tax measures for companies that export jobs, i was stunned at how many DU'ers preached the "it would decrease the motivation to produce wealth and create jobs" meme ...

and i also have noted that on threads of this nature, most of the "candidate supporters" and those who often use expressions like "circular firing squads" do not participate ... there just does not seem to be an issues-based enthusiasm to fight anything other than republicans ...

a point you made in your own post was perhaps the most telling of all ... the WTO protests in Seattle occurred during Clinton's time in office ... what could better underscore the reality that the problem of corporate control of the government and the loss of our democracy, in many ways, transcends the political parties ... i think the time is right for the party to talk about a "people before profits" platform ... i think Americans are starting to see that there is too much catering to "special interests" ... maybe we need to start using the phrase "greedy interests" instead of "special interests" ... i think their focus, however, is on the government, not on the excessive power of mega-corporations ... you might get a buy-in on "bush caters to the wealthy" ... you might even get a buy-in on "Cheney worked for Halliburton and gives them favors" ... but as soon as you try to "punish business" by placing restrictions to protect democracy, you get labeled as anti-business ...

i guess my point is that, while i agree that the pro-corporate propaganda would be rejected if voters really understood the details, they have, at least to some degree, bought into the illusion that "free" markets help the economy and that if "you let the politicians 'interfere', it will hurt business" ... i'm afraid it is NOT an illusion the American people have bought into "free" market capitalism; the illusion they bought into is that "free" market capitalism can co-exist with democracy and that it has NOT poisoned our democratic institutions ...

finally, you raised points about getting rid of corrupt voting machines, promotin real democracy and busting up the media monopolies ... i couldn't agree more with the importance of doing all these things ... but we saw problems with increased corporate control and the centralization of the MSM media during the Clinton administration too ... until "party focussed" Democrats buy into the importance of being issues-focussed as well and until we demand that our candidates represent us on these issues, it's going to take a whole lot more than throwing bush out of office to bring about the changes we both seek ... that's what i'm afraid far too many DU'ers don't understand ...

[Wizard777]

104. Make them a public utility.

Complette with government regulation. Just like natural gas, electric, and telephone service. The main benefit of this is that the American consumer gains rights in the market place. This what my local home energy company was doing. You could rent a house and go to have the gas and electric turned on. The last tenant didn't pay the final bill. They would tell you that you had to pay that bill before a new account could be established. That is now illegal here in Maryland. This will also stop these top secret energu policy meeting and other corrupt deals between the oil companies and our politicians. Right now I'm leaning toward State refulation to dillute the massive power they have gained on the federal level. Instead of one easily corruptable target. They will be forced to deal with our Myriad of 50 States. Of course with the Fed looking over their shoulders for corruption. But no doubt Big Oil needs to be brought down to size. We now have just a division of big oil slapping around the Pentagon while robbing our treasury. This under the guises of what was to be originally call O.I.L. That is too big and too powerful.

I say we start with gas. Exxon has already run full page ads telling America not to bother boycotting them because they can't hurt them like that. They don't need the gas money. So there should be no resistance to the utility regulation from them.

[eridani]

109. Tax windfall profits and use the money for alternative energy

See the following link to promote the bill.

http://www.kucinich.us/archive/home/display.php?src=k_20050509_tnfcevprfcvxrnpg.cuc

[NuttyFluffers]

111. Great Idea! Why not?

Couldn't be any worse than it is now, could it?

Nationalize energy just like we pretty much nationalize military and nationalize major ports. Some things are too important to leave to market forces.

Some people who are all for "the markets" never utter a peep when it comes to national sovereignty over military and its borders and ports. So why not energy -- it's about equally crucial as military, borders, and transport.

Naturally, I'd prefer it be broken down into state, county, city regional control to some extent -- delegation is good. But overall energy creation, distribution, acquisition -- sure, let's do so!

When So Cal and Northern California grids are barely interconnected by a few choke points it is just another good example of the failings of the uncontrolled market in the face of crucial needs. Just like when the markets didn't work for electricity at its earliest, with elec poles having 15+ different carriers and different means of transmission, starting fires all over cities and killing people left and right and pissing everyone off, the gov't needed to step in. Well, now energy again can't do its job without hurting people, but this time it's destroying America -- nationalize it.

[thethinker]

113. I am glad to see people thinking out of the box . . .

I am glad to see people discussing the mess our government is in and suggesting intelligent methods of fixing it.

I believe if we had responsible government representing the people they would have already put in a Windfall Profit Tax on the oil companies.

I believe if we had responsible government representing the people they would be discussing nationalizing the oil industry. It works in Venezuela. The profits from the oil industry go to benefit the citizens.

I can't help but notice when people argue in favor of "free" market policies, how much it sounds like what we all learned in school. I came out of school thinking that if the government regulated business in any way, it was bad policy. For years, I believed that. Now I know if government doesn't regulate business and corporations, we are all doomed.

Nationalized health care is working in all the civilized countries of the world except America. Here we aren't even talking about it. Americans have been brain washed to believe that corporate profits is more sacred than their own health and lives. Where did we get the idea that capitalism equates with stealing from the poor and middle class?

Capitalism can only work successfully when corporations are regulated. And our government has been de-regulating corporation ever since the Reagan years.

[Dynasty_At_Passes]

120. Can anyone here cite a credible reason why this document has been ignored?

Why have the parties completely ignored this astoundingly proof packed document?

http://www.answers.com/topic/2004-u-s-presidential-election-controversy-voting-machines

What is going on with the elections and the leadership does anyone know?

[Road Scholar]

122. Amen Brother! and everything else in which competition

in the marketplace isn't allowed to work. Such as health care, etc. They are all made fat and unaccountable by crooked lobbyists and politicians.