Nationalize the Oil Industry

Why not?

If Peak Oil is true, and since we are addicted to oil, and it would mean sure death to America without our oil, we must now exert complete control over the supply and distribution of our oil.

Or are we going to allow private oil companies to set the date of death of the American dream?

I think not!

Invade the countries that produce it? Oops, that's not going so well.

What? Are you crazy? No, we buy it from them. Geeez.

Thing is this country has a large enough supply of oil... if we use it efficiently.

I could be wrong about the OP though about the notion of invading other countries, but I am pretty sure the OP speaks of nationalizing oil refining capacity when he speaks of nationalization.

With Exxon in control invasions are the only option. We put our people in control and we will find a way to alleviate the poorest people from suffering any more than we all suffer these high prices.

Oil is a matter of National Security. We Defend our country with a Standing Army and Navy. The government should own and operate enough oil fields and refineries to maintain that Defense force. Not to compete with other oil Industry but just to maintain the country's Security needs.

Nationalize nothing, nothing at all. There is a place for Government, there is a place for private industry. Let industry take care of the products and services, let government take care of the rule of law. Don't let them mix.

what joke.

Not that nationalization would ever f**king happen...

what makes you think the government would operate it correctly and without corruption?
we are talking about the same united states government right ?

you know, just because its the government doing the raping and not a private corporation doesn't make it okay.

what could be done to stop the government from doing us the same way as the corporations if they decided they wanted more money?

i think youd also effectively see an end to alternative fuel.
why would the government want to give up something they make money off of(kinda whats going on right now anyways) ?

We are talking about THE lifeblood of our society. Leaving our future in the hands of private corporations is a grave error for which we are already paying dearly.

But following your reasoning, all health care should be private, the roads, the military and space exploration, among other government services, should also be privatized? Try again.

It's so great that we got rid of all that intrusive government running the production and distribution of our power supplies, now we get to pay three times the price while the facilities disintegrate.

And health care, no more government intrusion and now there's half the capacity at 10 times the cost, but at least we don't have rationing like those poor suckers in Canada, oh wait...

:eyes:

After all, that's the core of the ethics behind profit and a 'free market' - that competitors will enter the market and produce oil for less. Ubetcha. The higher those prices go then the more oil that'll be produced as the 'free market' and the 'invisible hand' work their magic.

Why is THEIR oil hidden under other people's land?

I believe that, as well as health insurance should be issues handled at the federal level by the government, as well as infrastructure like interstates and railroads.

Energy and health care are national-security issues.

edited for spelling...

I love the proposals that we convert the US to a socialist, third world cesspool.

If we nationalized our oil and it did lower the price, wouldn't it just create a higher demand for American oil which would drive the price back up?

That will encourage conservation...but the point is that the oil CEO's are making obscene, record profits. That money could fund a national healthcare plan of which we would create a win/win situation...even with the high cost of oil.

but the Gov't had a difficult time regulating elecricity and phone service. Do you think the oil industry would just lay down and take a cut in profits.

The oil industry would be gone. The only thing that would be left for those robber barons would be to take their money and run.

Run the bastards right out of town. On a rail. Tarred and feathered.

The oil production will continue just fine. There is a market for the stuff, ya know?

Thing is the way it's going now will cripple America. It is already crippling the least amongst us and all that for the gross profits of just a few.

Really, so you'll just make the existing employees of these companies federal employees, so nothing disrupts the flow? Just how exactly would you do this?

Make them all federal employees?

Would you care to answer the question? What will we do with all the current employees?

that is self evident.

industry (not the legions of paper pushers, lawyers, and executives) their wages have been stagnant since the 80's.

I know that as federal employees their benefits would be a hell of a lot better.

I agree. But that will require more money, how will that lower the price of gas at the pump, we're talking millions of people here?

(((not the legions of paper pushers, lawyers, and executives)))

I'm sure a few of those jobs could be deleted, but the others will require somebody to man that post.

itself to be capable of administrating large enterprises much more efficiently, at a tiny fraction of the cost, that corporations do.

The income that the oil business generates wouldn't disappear so the new status of the employees would represent no significant additional cost and the loss of the billions drained through the replacement of the aforementioned paper pushers, lawyers, and executives would go a long way toward reducing the price at the pump. Add in the excessive profits and shareholder dividends that would no longer be extracted and we would see even greater reductions. Alternatively, the excess dollars could go toward paying off the oil administration's massive debt, or providing the education and health care that is currently lacking.

As for positions you claim are, and may be, necessary the government already has them and at a fraction of the price so there's even more money finding it's way to better purpose than is currently happening.

You seem to know quite a bit about the industry, how much revenue currently goes to these areas? Add in the costs of advertising, lobbying, suppression of competition, campaign contributions, and you could probably come up with even more, and what does it come to? One company made $40 billion in three months after all these expenses, how much are we talking about here? $200B, $300B, more?

I'm not sure if it would be a good idea or not, but it is certainly worth looking at after the behavior we've seen over the last hundred years or so. The oil industry has proven itself to be utterly vile and unconscionable for its entire existence, conspiring, colluding, with no regard for the law or the consequences of its actions, they'd deserve anything they got, and more, from this kind of action.

2 people from opposite ends as far as opinions on a subject, having an adult conversation without it turning into a battle of insults and sarcasm on this board is a rarity. Your post deserves a better response than i have time for right now. ( have some things need to be done ). But i do have a few more answers and questions to run past you. Back shortly.


Once again thanks.

It can be quite frustrating, some people are so rude and would never (I hope) be like that in person.

Talk to you later.

Or would you just screw all those people with oil stocks in their 401Ks?

Most don't understand the millions of people that would be affected by such a thing, or the overall impact.

And just where is the federal government going to get a couple trillion dollars to do that?

The valuation of the companies doesn't come anywhere near that amount. Do you know how eminent domain sales work? Same thing.

Now, the oil in the ground is probably worth trillions, but that is not the property of the oil companies, they buy it as it is pumped out and the price for that fluctuates every day, so they are not entitled to the value of it, even if there were an accurate way to determine how much there is.

It's far more money that the government can come up with. The market capitalization of just the top three alone (ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips) is over 700 billion.

provide a return as opposed to the dead loss the military represents.

It is a huge amount of money, so what's your point?

I think that there are intermediate steps to take before nationalization and it is a complicated issue (see exchange between TX-RAT & myself), but to nix the idea, and do nothing, because our government "just doesn't have the money" is inaccurate and simplistic.

That depends on whether the oil company lease's or own the minerals. In my case we own most of the available minerals. There are several of the Majors that have purchased the minerals from the original landowners. When i bought my place (1920 acres) 15 years ago, the minerals were only available on 2 of the 3 sections purchased. Conoco had bought those minerals 30 years earlier.

Since i do own the minerals on the remaining 1280 acres, i feel the unrecovered oil and gas definitely would have to apply to the overall purchase price.

How much of the industry do you think should be nationalized? Are you willing to take on all aspects of the Industry? exploration, drilling, recovery, pipelines, refining, distribution.?
How would you make it more efficient and cost effective if you have to work within our own government guidelines on Bids, Contracts, Government hiring guide lines and Labor agreements?

Great discussions.

There are parts of the industry that private contractors would be best to do the work. Other parts the peoples' representatives could do at less cost.

The reason for nationalizing the oil is to take gross profits out of the picture. And when the time comes, a fair rationing system can more easily be put in place.

Nobody would lose any money, just future gross profits. The revenue stream would continue and would pay the present day holders of mineral rights and equipment owners a fair price over time.

I've read that retailers are already limited to how much they can raise the price so that would continue, but wholesale prices would have controls placed by government officials.

would be a good start. Most of the distribution is done by SBO' I believe, and I've read that their margins are not excessive, but I'm certainly no expert. From what I've been told, most of the money is made in the refining stage where the fuel and myriad other products are produced.

The efficiency comes primarily from the additional costs and profit that the corporations have built into the system. Again, I don't know too much about the oil corporations specifically, but in general, corporate overhead is in the 20% - 40% range. Similar US government organizations accomplish the same, or better, results with 2% - 8% overhead.

In my life I've had the opportunity to work with both corporate and government organizations at every level and I have found that, in every case, the governmental agencies are far more efficient in nearly every respect. Oddly, the only exception to this was in school districts, where it is not at all uncommon for the administration facilities to rival the opulence of a top law firm and the administration salaries and benefits are completely out of line with the salaries of the producing workforce.

Some as much as 250% to 300% or more, at this point and time with prices like they are. But your idea makes more since because it doesn't rely on the price of oil but more on the volume of oil. Irregardless of the price of oil you margin of profit would be the same whether oil was at 64 dollars a barrel or as in 1998 8.50 a barrel. You would just need to assure you had the proper volume.
Another poster made another interesting suggestion in that all oil was to be sold to the feds at a set price and them marked up by the Gov before going to the open market.

When the power utilities were deregulated in the 1990s, groups like Enron emerged, and California got bilked out of several billion dollars worth of money when Enron artificially created supply shortages in order to make Californians pay more.

that are paying 10 times more for their electricity than when the evil government ran things at no profit.

You know that those of us in Los Angeles did not have exorbitant rate increases or one single black/brown out in 2003, even though LADWP was roundly criticized for not going along with the rest of the idiots and keeping control of production and distribution.

And the phone systems are so much better now too, thank god I get to pay so much more for no service, and the CEO of my phone company is going to jail for stealing millions from customers.

And let's not forget the airlines, so much easier, safer, and convenient than when the government regulated everything. Not to mention all the employees of the airlines, they really made out great didn't they?

This "private business is innovative and efficient and government is bad" bullshit has to stop. It is not, nor has it ever been, true.

The whole 'theory' of a free market and market prices says that high prices attracts competition that creates more product and keeps prices down. How is the market going to CREATE more oil???

if they have a hard time finding more oil

As they price goes up (without bounds), only those who can afford it will be able to fuel their vehicles. So, first we price the least able to pay out of the market. What's really 'magic' about that is the fact that those rising prices will be mostly profit (why look for what can't be found?) and those profits will effectively redistribute wealth from those having the least to those having the most.

Meanwhile, let's ignore fifty years of "oil depletion allowances" and other taxpayer subsidies.

Great system. :puke: :puke:

We've got more drilling activity taking place right now than 10 years ago. We drilled 8 wells last year and are on the 7th of a 14 well package this year.

LMAO

"it's not that they don't anything, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so"

It's unfortunate but the government is as close to popular control as is possible.

You think the government should just seize my oil and gas?

And those poor people who the government might think there is some oil under their house, "Here's your check for your house grandma, now get the F*%^ off the government's land, we got drilling to do."

You are sitting on our oil and you will sacrifice the government given right of 'ownership' to control what happens to our oil.

Afterall, about the only reserves left are under public lands. We will wean you from profiting off of the peoples' oil. It can be easy or be hard. Your choice.

it probably will happen. What the government giveth, the government can taketh away.

I guess you are really upset that your government has taken over the oil of the Iraqis, eh?

the landowners.


And if you really think it will happen here, go ahead and hold your breath.

You think we should give back that which we took from the Natives of North America?

Ya know, those guys who used to own all the rights to your land. Before they were ripped off.

you finally caught on!

Yes, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, should have control over the peoples' most vital resource. It took a while but you got it!

The government can taketh away.

Who gave you your mineral rights? The government. The government took it from the Native people, right?

Well, you're gonna give it back to all us Native United States people.

That's the way it goes. It's our oil, and we need it. Cough it up, son.

The previous land owner when i bought the place, and they weren't given to me they were purchased.

Really!! then you owe me money, pay up.

Didn't see your name on any of the loan agreements, or lease agreements, maybe i need to look again.

Then you owe me allot of money, pay up.

mineral rights. That's been standard in every property deed I've ever signed. So if the government (or Exxon or whomever) decides they want to drill under your property, you would probably be hard-pressed to stop them. They could outspend you in court, for one thing. Or use eminent domain.

Personally, I would much rather see us kick the petroleum habit -- no need to start taking the oil out from under folks. However, if the oil cartel continues to run this country, it would not surprise me to see them resort to that.

and I have wells on all of it.

Myself included.

hmm, let me think about who's needs are greater? Oh yeah, the majority.

Why don't you just save your money and go out and buy your own land, and minerals, like i did, and not try and steal mine. Even better, meet my price and I'll just sell you mine.

If the government comes in, you would be compensated at fair market value, in a case like that, it wouldn't be theft.

If the government would fairly compensate the oil industry, then we would have a major budget crisis. The cost would be in the trillions, which is just stupid for a problem that can be fixed for much cheaper that doesn't require nationalization.

especially offshore and in some public lands on the continent, in a case like that, the government would simply break the lease.

It's breaking a contract

usually it would be enough for the company in question to recoup costs for extracting the oil in question, but that's about it. Though, I will say that if they already recouped the costs, they shouldn't be paid anything, especially if already guilty of price gouging, which is certainly possible, and warrants investigation. In a case like that, I would imagine that, legally, the government could break the contract, because the company in question would have broken the public trust. These leases usually have a lot of strings attached, obviously.

In any event, the government would still have to pay for whatever equipment would still be on-site, such as offshore oil rigs, etc.

Id rather have the going rate, their idea of fair market value is take what we give you or we'll take it anyway.

Question.

Wheres all the money going to come from to purchase all those mineral rights? The amount of money to pull that off would put the national dept to shame.

leave the oil fields, that are privately owned, alone, but instead they will have to sell the oil to the U.S. government, with a profit margin cap.

What about the remaining 60+% that we have to import to cover out daily needs?

However, it may be able to pressure OPEC to lower prices, through good old fashioned negotiation. Even if that fails, the price per gallon for refined gasoline will lower in price, not drastically, but at least to be more affordable.

The point isn't JUST to lower the price of gasoline, for the Government can use the direct revenue stream that this would generate to start transitioning the economy of the country to be free of fossil fuels. It probably won't pay for all that needs to be done to solve our oil problems, but it would help. Programs such as rebates for families to buy hybrids or emission free vehicles, for those in lower income/bad credit brackets can even get grants, or extremely low interest loans with a trade in of an older vehicle. In addition we can increase funding for Amtrak, and invest in high speed rail for regional or even nationwide travel, part of this money will be from gradually withdrawing subsidies for the airline industry, which have been on life support for what, 7 years?

Other ideas include getting out of Iraq(somewhat obvious), and reducing the Pentagon budget by at least a third, reconfiguring the armed forces, withdrawing them back to actual U.S. borders. We don't need to have bases in 2/3rds of the nations on this planet.

Alternative fuels and other ideas would be supported, where practical, and we continue researching other ideas for alternative ways to travel, etc. However, what we need isn't a shit load of new research, but actual implementation of concepts and technology that ALREADY exist.

Neither options are going to be popular with the public.

I don't understand the logic how private oil companies are killing the American dream. The problem is that there physically is not enough oil to sustain us forever, and it doesn't matter who controls it as long as us, the consumers, continue buying it at the rates we do.

Each will be rationed a certain amount at a fair price and any use over that amount the excess consumers will pay dearly.

No longer would there be incentives to produce gas guzzlers, instead efficient use will rule the days until the last drop is used.

As it is in the profit driven supply stream, the incentives to waste are great. Yes?

It's not simple, since everyone has different gas needs.

If you live in a city, with public transportation, you don't need to purchase gas. Someone who lives in a rural area needs to drive more, using more gas. Then businesses who depend on transportation have their own needs too.

When you factor in everyones need, the system just becomes one big mess.

It is what is happening now, only the least fortunate won't be able to afford it in due time.

If you have credits for say 10 gallons a week and only use 4, you can sell the extra to a trucker.

Thank You.

The very heart and soul of our country is at stake and all who object will be as pariahs.

:grouphug:

Good come back.

It's just that you always seem so negative and take stances that seem to go against what is best for the people. That's why I was so rude to you, OMC.

As you may have noted, your's was the least of all replies and that furthered not the conversation, so I was hoping to just brush you off. Should have just ignored you, eh? My bad.

Sometimes my impulsive need to respond obnoxiously beyond my control should just quite simply be ignored and not entertained.

For the record though, I don't believe I take stances that are against what is best for people; even if you feel such. Most often I believe my positions are the right ones to have and the most rational to hold. That doesn't always hold true, but I do my best to hold opinions that way as often as possible despite some people's anger towards my positions. I'm contrary so frequently because I find responding to threads in which agreement by the masses would be obvious to be uneventful, boring and unnecessary to post in. Due to that lopsided way in which threads I choose to post in, it appears I'm all about being negative. Not true though, since I agree with an overwhelmingly greater number of threads here than I disagree with; I just simply don't post much in them.

In this case, I think nationalizing the oil would turn into a disaster and wouldn't be best for everybody, and others have given their reasons for why they feel that way as well. But please don't for a second frame me as someone who doesn't hold people's best intentions at heart. At the end of the day all I want is peace and prosperity for anyone and everyone to whatever extent is possible.

Both are necessary for a safe, free America!

It's time for us to take control of all that really makes a difference in the peoples' well being. Enough of gross profits made off the blood, sweat and tears of the working people!

of our land, our health and our country "to provide for the common welfare".

Make the oil industry become obsolete. These fuckers already have too much power as it is. They need to make themselves useful.

Rather than make it obsolete, we just make it answer to the people. And in so doing create incentives for alternatives and conservation.

oh, wait, its the US that does that kind of shit, invading countries that dare reorder their economic systems for human needs and not corporate greed. CIA-Sponsored a coup in Iran in the 50's, on behalf of British Petroleum. has 140,000+ troops in iraq and sets oil control as the first priority (and this is part of the Republican and Demo agenda for Iraq... no disagreement there!)

Then enact subsidies and not for profit pricing on their Citizens Oil Co. The remaining Oil Companies would be forced to drop their prices to stay in the market, and eventually sell their hardware to the people of the US.

from the hands of Bonnie & Clyde, and placed back into the national trust

and nationalize the purchase of foreign oil for domestic consumption

We could strike the best deal that way and once again become known as honest brokers to the rest of the world. Win win.

of all the US companies in the oil business, and if this was rumored for a while, I wonder what market value would be?

But given that without the infrastructure supported by the people the oil ain't worth much, the only great value lies in the machinery to pump, refine and transport the oil so the people can make use of that oil..

Or they could just sacrifice it up for the good of the people. Ya know, like what is the worth in all the lives that have been taken to protect America?

The oil barons machinery doesn't even come close in value to the Iraqi veterans lives. The barons could make their wee sacrifice, couldn't they?

After all, it is America's future we are dealing with.

but since the largest single holder owns about 3 million shares while dozens of financial institutions and mutual funds have much larger stakes in them (tens and hundreds of millions of shares), what happens as a result of telling these companies (not that I have any sympathy for them) to F' off for the billions of dollars they would lose? The government will end up bailing out these institutions or they'll just turn around and screw their customers to recover the losses (or probably both). Of course, while government will be happy to bail out the institutions, individual investors, those who had shares from index funds in their 401k's would get completely screwed. I don't imagine the California state public employees pension fund (CALPERS) would enjoy being left holding the bag for something like 1.7 Billion dollars either, and that's just 1 of many pension funds invested here.

And those numbers are just for ExxonMobil itself.

Exxon Mobil alone is worth $450 Billion

Or something close to it.

When Venezuela renationalized its phone line grid earlier this year, it bought out all the company stock (I think GTE controlled the grid at the time) after entering negotiations with the company in reacquiring the assets.

With the Orinoco oil basin project, it merely bought a 51 percent stake in the field so that it would be able to control what happens with the field and how the profits generated from it would be distributed.

In the case of US oil companies and assets, we're probably talking about more than a trillion dollars at current market value, which is sure to rise in the coming years, and even quicker if it becomes likely that the government would actually do this.

It may not be a majority stake, but in some cases 10 or 30 percent may end up being the plurality, and that would give your voice hefty weight at the decision-making table in the board room over what happens.

as shareholders, but most don't see that the pay-offs to CEOs to leave
is major shares in no matter what company they destroy.

The prices are based off the profits, and when you remove the profit, the stock price will plummet.

If the government only takes a partial stake, you are going to have many pissed off stock owners.

At any rate, it's not necessarily to limit earnings as opposed to ensuring that there isn't price gouging or shenanigans with oil refineries or golden parachutes for CEOs that seem a little too large compared to what the record of performance would suggest.

You aren't seriously recommending the government burn 450 billion on buying out Exxon-Mobil entirely at current market value? Think how much it would cost to also buy out Chevron-Texaco or Conoco-Philips at the same time. The only way that could be done is if eminent domain were declared without adding to the size of the national debt.

There are different means of preventing price gouging like promoting competition and breaking up cartels, which our government is suppose to do.

Right now there are huge incentives to build and maintain refineries with the price of gas as high as it is now, since they could sell more gas and earn more profits. The market should be able to sort out the mess with the refineries in the long run.

CEO compensation can get out of hand, but that is usually held accountable by the stock holders, since they are paying the bill.

Yeah for a long time..........."The market should be able to sort out the mess"

do you really read what you write without observing reality.?

We have to wait a couple months to see if that is the case.

If I were to talk about Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, BP-Shell, Conoco-Philips, I'm pretty much naming the bulk of the market in terms of oil refineries as it is. I don't think that is healthy competition. Maybe if there weren't so many barriers to entry for many would-be oil refiners, there would be more oil refineries, yet these companies have known the trends for years about rising oil consumption in the US, yet they have not built very many refineries if I can recall.

I don't know if they're doing that because they simply lack money to spend on infrastructure repair/upgrade of refining capacity or because the few competitors left in the market each independently concluded that restricting the refining capacity would artificially inflate prices per gallon of gasoline.

I still don't think that we should nationalize the oil industry to fix the problem though.

Or have you really not "thinked" about it.

You do know about Standard Oil, General Motors and the Nazis right?
Or do you think that was hype?

And there should be an investigation if the oil companies are price gouging, and if that's the case, then they should be fined heavily, so they don't do it again. Arresting the CEOs would be even better.

If the companies are making their profits fairly and there is healthy competition, then I don't care.

Wow you think a million or a billion is enough
to teach them a lesson that they would listen to?

We are talking about fighting Climate Change
Iraq and ............profits?

They have enough to handle your fine
and the deaths of billions.

and by fined heavily, I'm talking about billions.

And if the topic is climate change, well then the less gas we use, the less global warming we have. So lower refinary compacity is actually a good thing for global warming, since we will be using less fossil fuels for transportation

Now who do you send to jail?


The majority share holders are just as guilty?
or don't you believe in democracy?

The original thought was on nationalization and you still think
that after witnessing what major international corporations do
still should be treated like individuals and pay fines?




They should go to prison and not be a partner to humanity.

that's why there should an investigation to find out

There's 39 oil producing states, with independent producers in each state. There's over 1400 independent producers of oil and gas in TX alone. Then you add all the other states and independent producers, and you have a figure in excess of 10,000 independent producers who employee millions of people. Oh! and don't forget the business's that cater to only the oil and gas industry, there's a few more million people. I'm sure their all in on it.

You better start at the source. Considering 60% of our daily needs are imported, your going to need your passport.

We can't regulate the international markets.

Because that would mean a drop in gasoline prices, which would mean decreased profit margins. When output meets demand, you get price A. When demand outstrips output, you get price B, which is higher than price A.

Nothing happens under price B unless there is a threat of competition. In the case of competition, you (let's say you're Exxon-Mobil) build more refineries so you don't lose market share to somebody who can meet demand (Chevron-Texaco, for instance), but if you and the competitor independently--independently, that's the key word--conclude that you can make more money if you both don't build more refineries because of inflated prices, you basically found a way around anti-trust laws, and as long as it is difficult for start-ups to enter the market, competition will remain lax, and prices will remain higher than if there was a functiong free market.

They don't give a shit about your philosophy, or concepts of nationalism.

The companies have crossed the line. The hired lobbyists with the political connections are allowing pollution and disallowing alternatives from coming to the market.

They must be punished. Someone up thread said something about how much these companies are worth... well they ain't worth much without the peoples' government making it safe to do business.

Besides, so what if the stockholders take a loss? Happens all the time. They can get out now, if they're smart.

But what else happens is that America is protected; it begins to have a stable price and exerts control over the flow while ensuring that economic loss to the majority of Americans is reduced.

What's more important? A corporation's health or the health of the working class?

unlike true gravity that has natural objects fall..........uppps...............

give me the facts.........about why you think international corporations
should have economic justification over this nation?

That short answer is because they are more efficient compared to the government.

The long answer will come in the morning.

I'm tired, Good nite

practitioners can be wrong a majority of the time and continue to collect a paycheck. Of course the meteorologists are always getting better.

Those of us from the analytic school are far more precise, consistent and successful than you suggest.
The Professor

There are much easier ways to dealing with the problem, that don't involve radical changes. You can change the laws to prevent lobbying, and oil companies giving campaign contributions.

If you are concerned about obscene profits, than just increase the tax rates, so the majority of the profits can go to the government and help out the poor.

They are doing a bang up job already, as refinery utilization is approaching 100%.

But, then again, that is the goal of the 'market'.

The 'market' is not the answer for everything. Critical energy infrastructure is not the same as supplying toilet paper for Wal-Mart. The 'market' system is what has led to refinery consolidation and maximization of utilization, resulting in little redundancy in the system.

Speaking of redundancy, the 'market' has positioned a critical mass of refineries in hurricane prone areas, such as the Houston ship canal. Is this an example of the brilliance of the market?

And you are proposing that the 'market' is the solution? Doesn't that seem a little massive even to you, Gravity?

It's more than fair for the rich bastards to sacrifice just a bit to help in the common good.

You are assuming that everything will run exactly the same, except with no profits.

The problem is that there are secondary effects and unintended consequences from nationalization. If investors now fear government takeovers, then there will be less investment into the economy resulting in lower GDP and employment. The stability of our economic system, which worked for the past 70 years, allowing us to have the strongest economy in the world, will be compromised.

There is also no guarantee that the government will be able to deliver gas at a cheaper price to the consumers. In most cases, the government is less efficient at providing goods and services to the public, even when profits are taken into account.

they are inefficient by default, and act as a government of their own.

FEMA, Corp of Engineers, Almost any department of the Government that has A Bush appointee in charge.

He's Big Oil's most valuable and most highly paid spokesman.

... they will drag its rotting corpse to the steps of the Capital Building in Washington D.C. and claim it is their gift to the people of the United States.

Pretty soon now, it seems.

Does the efficiency and skill of management of FEMA strike a chord. How long do you think it would take A Government agency to screw it up to the point of total collapse. Look at our efficient DOD, VA, DOJ, Corp of Engineers. Are you seriously recommending that we turn over the Petroleum industry to the likes of Bush appointees & cronies. Sorry, cannot support this proposition.

KBH was on one of the cable news shows yesterday doing the usual rePublican talking points for the oil companies. They were discussing the high gas prices and KBH drug out the tired "the oil companies need incentives to build more refineries and update the existing ones" BS talking point.

I've had it with the extortion by the oil companies to recieve corporate welfare. If with their windfall profits the oil companies cannot act in good faith then they need to be relieved of their burden.

Why stop with the oil industry? We should also nationalize the grocery stores, the farms, all factories and anything else we can think of. ;)

If we are lucky, we could end up living in a socialist paradise where everything is cheap and plentiful and we all make the same salary, just like in ...

Let Western Union deal with that, OK?

Most countries around the world have already nationalized oil to one extent or another, from Europe, to the Middle East, to South America. I don't see what's so radical about this, oil is considered, even by the U.S. government, as a STRATEGIC resource, that is needed for national security. Shouldn't the government in charge of that security actually have control over its own natural resources?

for national security. That would include the aircraft industry, steel industry, aluminum industry, oil, all other military contractors, the computer hardware and software industries, agriculture, etc.. Oil is a strategic resource, but so is uranium and other key natural resources.

The people, through the government, already pays for those industries, why shouldn't they also control them, even to a limited extent?

The only exception would be the computer industry.

There's where the problem is, it's not their resources. The majority of the mineral rights not off shore belong to private citizens.

In one week, we'll get yet another hike in postal rates. Screw 'em. I use email, phone, and FedEx.

The USPS can kiss my butt.

If you think the USPS would be more efficient as a private enterprise, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

damned near EVERY other nation on Earth, I would say that there is something to admire there.

And that won't change with all this snippy bullshit being spewed.

They are inefficient and bumbling.

I do, however, appreciate their sponsorship of the Tour de France team.

after reading your replies on this thread, you are very comfortable in forming opinions without any knowledge of the subject at hand and operating out of incorrect and false assumptions.

First, the USPS handles more mail and packages in one day than FedEx, UPS, and DHL, combined do in one year. The USPS is the cheapest, most efficient postal service on earth, and is the model upon which all the others are based.

If you got your wish, and the functions of the USPS were taken over by the aforementioned private companies you could expect to pay between $2 and $3 dollars to send a postcard, expect it to take between 6 and 10 days to arrive (domestic only add another 1 - 3 weeks for AK, HI, and international), and have maybe a 70% chance of it arriving at all.

Even with the POS Potter that arbusto_® appointed to the Postmaster General position and doing his dead-level best to under staff and demoralize the entire service, it is still the best on earth by several orders of magnitude.

The only reason the stamp prices have been increasing is because gas prices are increasing, it costs more to deliver mail to everyone in the United States, whether that person lives in Brooklyn or Nome, Alaska.

imagination. We've both tried to give him the facts and he just isn't interested in learning anything.

Thanks for your effort, maybe you have the patience to break through the wall of ego. Good luck.

Redundancy is an effective means of convincing people. :sarcasm:

I particularly like the insults you tagged on. How could I doubt you and your superb discourse?

As it stands, I can send a postcard for free (without any mail service), and I will never spend even thirty nine cents on one. EVER. I only use mail under dire circumstances or to send a package, and UPS and FedEx are cheaper and faster than USPS with free insurance and tracking.

However, I salute you undying dedication to the US Postal Service -- NOT!

Here's a clue about the worldwide perception of the USPS: What is the universal interpretation of the term "going postal"? If you think it means turning your business into a smooth operating, efficient machine, well... sorry. But, look. Don't get pissed. Seriously. This is just a discussion board argument. Breathe into a paper sack, and put the gun down....

They don't send mail to every home in the country every fucking business day.

Also, the early 1990s called, they want their outdated terms back!

"The 1990s called..." You're trying to insult my use of "going postal" as being "so 1990s" by using a goofy teenage 1990s insult? If it weren't so silly, it would be ironic.

By the way, if the USPS is so gd efficient, why am I willing to drive three blocks further to the UPS store to avoid standing in the immense USPS lines? Oh, I forgot -- it's the price we pay for government run programs and their universal efficiency.

Also, if you want efficiency, look no further than the Government, for every dollar that goes into Medicare, 97 cents go into actual MEDICAL care, compared to private insurance, which, if you are lucky, 70 cents will go into medical care, that's assuming no co-pays, deductibles, or being denied coverage.

You go to the USPS, stand in line, and mail your stuff.

I'll go elsewhere, and we'll both be happy.

to mail your parcels and letters.

Who knows? Maybe it's because somebody at the UPS store will talk to you.

You've got no argument other than your desire for a socialist state.

Keep trying, and good luck :rofl:

you will ever need to know about everything. But as you pointed out this is a discussion board and I did want to make sure that any people that stumble across your missive of uninformed and inaccurate opinion would have a couple of facts to base any opinion they may be formulating on.

You trade the use of one Public system for two OTHER public access systems and one private. E-Mail, in the modern context, started on government run and government paid for systems, actually, right NOW you are using a government funded service, you better log off, really quick. Phones are the same deal, actually, the government paid for and then spun it off to private enterprise, which I feel was a mistake.

And this is relevant because....???

My cell phone service is outstanding, as is my landline. They are NOT run by the feds. Ditto my ISP -- not federal.

Is there federal money in there somewhere? Probably, but can you find a context where government funding is totally absent? Doubt it.

The difference between a private enterprise with fed assistance and a federal program is immense.

I'm frankly surprised you don't know that, ever heard of ICANN, its a non-profit corporation with a special contract with the Commerce Department charged with regulating the naming conventions on the Internet. In addition to this, the federal government pays for many of the largest subnetworks of the Internet itself. You have to remember, the Internet of today was started by ARPA, the predecessor of DARPA, and, in the early 1980s, the National Science Foundation which is itself a government agency.

Right now the big debate is whether the United States should cede control of the Internet to an international agency, given that its extending out to all nations on the planet. Most likely, any such agency would be under the authority of the UN, but right now nothing is going to change that drastically, simply because there isn't enough political pressure to make any change in authority.

The Internet is comparable to, as an example, a marketplace on Main Street. You pay for the car, bike, or even shoes, to get to Main Street, which is itself publicly funded and maintained, so you have access to the marketplace itself, where you can browse, spend, or go to the library further down the street to check out a book. The biggest difference is that the Internet is global, where as the Main Street Marketplace is local.

As far as phones, the government was the one who strung up the lines for phone service, at least initially, and they also still fund much of the infrastructure itself, even if they "outsourced" the work to private companies.

... FDA behind the food industry, and DoT behind the transportation industry, and DoE behind the power grid etc etc etc.

The USPS is owned and operated by the US Government. My ISP is not. Nor are the television stations in my town nor the radio stations.

Yes, I'm painfully aware of the federal thumb up everyone's ass, and I'm not interested in them putting another couple of fingers in there.

So, if you want to make direct comparisons between the USPS and the Internet, then this thread just died on arrival because, according to that logic, the Federal Government already runs them.

them to be incompetent, they aren't exactly what you would call useless. Without an FCC, to give an example, good luck trying to tune into a station on the radio without interference from another station, same for TV. Without the FDA, how many more poisonings would take place from contaminated food? Without a DoE, we would have NO nuclear power plants, and rural areas would never get served with affordable electricity. You could also forget about a national highway system, or national rules for things as basic as road signs without a DoT.

The Government steps in when, for practical or market reasons, private enterprise sucks at delivering services. In areas where the government doesn't want to directly control such services, they let private enterprise step in, but only with certain conditions, such as price caps, etc. Power companies come to mind.

I didn't, if you noticed, make a direct comparison between the USPS and the Internet, not directly, if we were talking about 25 years ago, you would be correct. It was an example of Government doing something good. You were the one who claimed the Government is inefficient, I assume you mean by default, but that is simply not true. Imagine the Internet today if it weren't a government program from the start, you can't, not really, because no single enterprise could afford to create such a network from scratch, such a project takes decades, and wouldn't turn a profit for at least that long.

I said the Post Office was inefficient, and I would support it being privatized.

For-profit corporations exist to maximize shareholder value. This means that they would likely not bother to service areas that are remote or far out of the way due to higher costs to get mail out there, which would eat into profit margins.

The USPS in its current form exists to service the American people first and foremost, not to make a profit first and foremost. Why? Because sometimes there is a conflict between profit-taking and service, and in the private sector, often times profit-taking wins out over service.

Providing service to all citizens is great, but it's hardly efficient.

Regardless, even if the USPS only served major metropolitan areas they's still be inefficient.

Explain to me where they lie, and we can further discuss it.

... waiting to pick up a package, I'll see if I can come up something.

You must have a really poor manager running your post office. At any rate, you shouldn't toss the baby out with the bathwater. Because it is a function established by the US Constitution, there's nothing much that could be done except to pass a constitutional amendment stripping the relevant clause out. Good luck with that.

No shit, Sherlock. Now you're catching on.

All my previous postings on the issue were serious and not meant to anger or provoke you.

If my language set your virgin ears on fire, well, sorry.

Or any other major, gift giving holiday? Every business, and yes, even the post office, are slammed at either certain times of the year(beginning of month, end of month), during holidays, or at different times of the day, like the early evening. I don't see what lines have to do with efficiency, even such "efficient" businesses as UPS and FedEx can end up with large lines just to drop off or pick up a package, especially at the end of the year.

Compare that the 45 minute minimum at FedEx.

(only a socialist would believe the Post Office runs efficiently :eyes: )

So, if we granted your wish, and privatized the post office, I guess some citizens will just have to lose the service entirely, is that it?

Right, pal? You know all these answers, but you keep on coming pretending that no precedent exists. If the conditions of the privatization allow abandoning rural areas, then they're screwed. But the USPS closes offices, too, don't they?

Are you having fun yet?

Here in rural west TX allot of the mail is delivered by private contractors. Our county in particular runs about 60%. Only USPS deliveries are inside the city limits.

Sorry, but this is a capitalist country. I have no desire to model the US after some third-world shit hole run by a smirking, sniping asswipe with an inflated ego and unending desire for attention.

The oild companies are raping us, but we keep inviting it by never changing our habits. Time to get smart.

make it so.

We are a representative republic, and as such are free to chose whatever form of economic model we choose.

You, for some fucking reason, want to live in a socialist country. I don't.

But, if you think you can convert the US into a socialist, third world regime through our representative form of government, please give it a try. It is your guaranteed right.

However, you're in a minority of about ... 1%? 0.5%? Whatever.

You'll excuse me if I don't join you in your admiration of such world powers as Venezuela.

Rant all you want, the evidence is clear. You are factually wrong, accept it and move on.

and quit your childish screaming -- My point about this being a capitalist nation was the economic structure, not the form of government. As far as I know, there is no capitalist form of government.

But you knew that. You're just being petty.

Now, fingers back in your ears and "lalalalalalalala"

As for the US having a capitalist economy, even that is only partly true, we do have a somewhat mixed economy, though not nearly as mixed as many believe it should be. Your ranting and refusal to honestly debate just shows how well indoctrinated you are.

You react as if this suggestion were some kind of personal threat, when in fact, even if it were to happen it would likely be a great benefit to you.

capitalist country, other than the protection of private property. I suppose the distinction that may clarify this is that we have a capitalist economy, rather than that we are a capitalist nation.

:shrug:

You lost me with that one. I was under the impression that you acknowledged that we had a capitalist economy, but you wanted to nationalize a sector (or several sectors) of it. If the oil industry isn't in private hands to begin with, why would you be in favor of nationalizing it?

While we are focusing on oil, corporations are securing water rights all over the place. We think we need oil.

We DO need water and that barrel is one they are about to hold us over.

and we know we have a limited world supplies of fresh drinkable water already....

if you think a 1.50 is expensive for bottled water... shewie wait about 20 years.

could be used to fund the transition to a fossil fuel free economy.

Not many are willing to cut off the hand that feeds them. Whats their incentive to move away from fossil fuels, if a high percentage of their revenue comes from it?

right now.
They are can and do interfere in the development of alternatives with that power. They want only those alernatives that they can own and control.

Yes - nationalize!

that is why we are there- and why we stay there despite all the lies to the contrary-

NO 'entity' should obscenely profit on services which are essential to the life of our society-

greed is really ugly-

And there is no question that Peak Oil is true. Again, it's simply a question of when it is going to happen. If it happens between now and 2025, we simply are not prepared to deal with the ramifications of it, and the government knows it. Some of these threads in the Peak Oil Group at DU prove my point:

Oh my God. US Department of Energy addresses Peak Oil.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x312

Robert Hirsch - Meeting Peak Oil threat will cost $20 trillion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x2215




Regarding the inevitability of the nationalization of oil in this country, I think this post from happyslug explains it best:

Now in 2015 enough people will be hurting to force the Federal Government to do something. The upward push of oil prices will be less of a problem than the up and downs as people decrease and increase gasoline usage based on the prices going up and down (Oil prices goes up, less people buy gasoline, less people buy gasoline, prices drops to reflect less demand and than people buy gasoline which forces the price back up. This cycle will continue until the Federal Government accepts the fact that this up and down pricing is causing more harm than if people could plan around one price. The only way the Federal Government will be able to set that price is if it becomes the sole buyer of oil and the sole seller of Gasoline/diesel/heating fuel. Thus when demands drops because of price increase, the government will keep the price up providing some stable pricing for budgetary purposes. When price increase do to drop in supply or increase in demand the Feds smooth out the increase (And prevent any increase do to temporary situations).

Economists have long understood that people like price stability more than an occasional low price. Thus people will pay a premium for stable prices. This is how most monopolies form, not because the monopoly crush their opposition with low prices, but when prices go through the roof the monopoly still delver at its already high price (Through most monopolies also squeeze out lower cost producers by using its monopoly position to keep prices stable or low long enough to destroy someone).

Thus the above Federal monopoly would provide the price stability the country will need as the price of oil goes up and up, and to to the need of such a control on the price of oil, any guess on the price of oil in 2015 (if oil reaches $385 per barrel) is speculative. The Federal Monopoly may set the price of gasoline at $20 pocketing the difference between the cost of the oil, its distribution and refining and turning that money over to Congress for funding projects to make the US to adjust to a post-oil society. The monopoly may be old by than so that by keeping the price of gasoline up for the previous years demand for oil does not reach the $380 do to drop in demand in the US do to the much higher prices imposed by the Government Monopoly.

Thus to set a price for oil so far in advance is hard, we just do know how the Country and both the State the Federal Governments will react. The best solution would be a Government monopoly I mentioned above, but given the Control of the Various States and the Federal Government by the GOP, i do not think such a Government solution will be selected until AFTER ALL OTHER OPTIONS HAD BEEN TRIED AND SHOWN TO FAIL. Once everything else had failed than the Government Monopoly will be adopted and with it a slow improvement in the Country as the US finally accepts it has to convert to a Post-oil age.

In my opinion, Three to Four years of $5-10 a gallon gasoline will HAVE to occur first and during that time period the GOP solution of leaving it up to the "Market" will have been totally discredited. Only with the discrediting of the "Market" as the best solution to the increase in oil pricing will Government intervention be adopted.

Please note my estimate of Three to four years comes from what happened in the 1970s, it took three to four years for people to start to buy smaller cars and adjust to using less oil in the 1970s. If prices had continued upward (or at least stayed at the same price oil had been in the late 1970s) the American people would have adopted even more fuel efficiencies by the late 1980s but the oil glut of the 1980s killed that momentum. It is only with the boom times of the 1990s that the SUV craze reversed almost 10 years of better and better fuel efficiencies in Automobiles. Thus we have to start all over again as if it is 1974. While from 2004 onward you have seen a movement to more fuel efficient cars, you will not see that in effective numbers for 3-4 years (At which time many of the people who purchased cars in 2000-2004 trade their old car in for more fuel efficient new ones). This will continue after 2010 but not enough to force the price of gasoline to drop. Thus by 2015 some sort of solution will be demanded AND people will by than accept that higher prices for gasoline must be part of the plan. Furthermore most people will prefer that higher price going to the Government than corporate America, for the simple reason people will want that excess profit going to do something that helps the country as a whole adjust to the post-oil age.

Thus I for see prices being set at $20 a gallon domestically with the excess $8.00 over and above the cost to buy, refine and distribute oil being used to make the country more energy efficient (By providing mass transit, bike lanes and paths, building more concentrated housing, and even encouraging Farmers to go back to using horses and mules).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x624

as you http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x2369">note here (and he has been spot on so far), when coupled with the findings of Hirsch study that it would take 20 years to mitigate 21 Mbbl/dy of the projected 65 M bl/dy 'demand' shortfall, nationalization of what remains of the nations petroleum industry is just a matter of time.

As the rate approaches 55 Mbbl/dy and considering most of 30 M bbl/dy decline from the current production rate will come out of the 42 M bbl/dy export market, it really isn't going to leave much for the nation that is currently consuming nearly 1/3 of said export market, using borrowed money.

So, the question is, in 2020 will we be able to make it on 7 M bbl/dy of nationalized domestic production, down from the, what, 21 M bbl/dy of domestic and import we are currently consuming?

For some reason, the following movie opening comes to mind:

"My life fades, the vision dims, all that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams, this wasted land. But most of all, I remember the Road Warrior. The man we called Max.

To understand who he was you have to go back to another time. When the world was powered by the black fuel, and the deserts sprouted great cities of pipe and steel.

Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war, and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel they were nothing. They had built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered, and stopped. Their leaders talked, and talked, and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear.

Men began to feed on men. On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage, would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice.

And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed, men like Max, the warrior Max. In the roar of an engine he lost everything. He became a shell of a man, a burnt-out desolate man. A man haunted by the demons in his past. A man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again."

Opening Dialog, "The Road Warrior", 1981

My fear is that by 2020 there will not only be massive gas shortages but food shortages, not only because of the expense of growing the food (fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) but transportation expenses as well. So either the government breaks down to where we have Mad Max anarchy, or it grows in totalitarian strength and we end up in Soylent Green territory.

And there is no question that Peak Oil is true. Again, it's simply a question of when it is going to happen. If it happens between now and 2025, we simply are not prepared to deal with the ramifications of it, and the government knows it. Some of these threads in the Peak Oil Group at DU prove my point:

Oh my God. US Department of Energy addresses Peak Oil.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x312

Robert Hirsch - Meeting Peak Oil threat will cost $20 trillion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x2215



Regarding the inevitability of the nationalization of oil in this country, I think this post from happyslug explains it best:

Now in 2015 enough people will be hurting to force the Federal Government to do something. The upward push of oil prices will be less of a problem than the up and downs as people decrease and increase gasoline usage based on the prices going up and down (Oil prices goes up, less people buy gasoline, less people buy gasoline, prices drops to reflect less demand and than people buy gasoline which forces the price back up. This cycle will continue until the Federal Government accepts the fact that this up and down pricing is causing more harm than if people could plan around one price. The only way the Federal Government will be able to set that price is if it becomes the sole buyer of oil and the sole seller of Gasoline/diesel/heating fuel. Thus when demands drops because of price increase, the government will keep the price up providing some stable pricing for budgetary purposes. When price increase do to drop in supply or increase in demand the Feds smooth out the increase (And prevent any increase do to temporary situations).

Economists have long understood that people like price stability more than an occasional low price. Thus people will pay a premium for stable prices. This is how most monopolies form, not because the monopoly crush their opposition with low prices, but when prices go through the roof the monopoly still delver at its already high price (Through most monopolies also squeeze out lower cost producers by using its monopoly position to keep prices stable or low long enough to destroy someone).

Thus the above Federal monopoly would provide the price stability the country will need as the price of oil goes up and up, and to to the need of such a control on the price of oil, any guess on the price of oil in 2015 (if oil reaches $385 per barrel) is speculative. The Federal Monopoly may set the price of gasoline at $20 pocketing the difference between the cost of the oil, its distribution and refining and turning that money over to Congress for funding projects to make the US to adjust to a post-oil society. The monopoly may be old by than so that by keeping the price of gasoline up for the previous years demand for oil does not reach the $380 do to drop in demand in the US do to the much higher prices imposed by the Government Monopoly.

Thus to set a price for oil so far in advance is hard, we just do know how the Country and both the State the Federal Governments will react. The best solution would be a Government monopoly I mentioned above, but given the Control of the Various States and the Federal Government by the GOP, i do not think such a Government solution will be selected until AFTER ALL OTHER OPTIONS HAD BEEN TRIED AND SHOWN TO FAIL. Once everything else had failed than the Government Monopoly will be adopted and with it a slow improvement in the Country as the US finally accepts it has to convert to a Post-oil age.

In my opinion, Three to Four years of $5-10 a gallon gasoline will HAVE to occur first and during that time period the GOP solution of leaving it up to the "Market" will have been totally discredited. Only with the discrediting of the "Market" as the best solution to the increase in oil pricing will Government intervention be adopted.

Please note my estimate of Three to four years comes from what happened in the 1970s, it took three to four years for people to start to buy smaller cars and adjust to using less oil in the 1970s. If prices had continued upward (or at least stayed at the same price oil had been in the late 1970s) the American people would have adopted even more fuel efficiencies by the late 1980s but the oil glut of the 1980s killed that momentum. It is only with the boom times of the 1990s that the SUV craze reversed almost 10 years of better and better fuel efficiencies in Automobiles. Thus we have to start all over again as if it is 1974. While from 2004 onward you have seen a movement to more fuel efficient cars, you will not see that in effective numbers for 3-4 years (At which time many of the people who purchased cars in 2000-2004 trade their old car in for more fuel efficient new ones). This will continue after 2010 but not enough to force the price of gasoline to drop. Thus by 2015 some sort of solution will be demanded AND people will by than accept that higher prices for gasoline must be part of the plan. Furthermore most people will prefer that higher price going to the Government than corporate America, for the simple reason people will want that excess profit going to do something that helps the country as a whole adjust to the post-oil age.

Thus I for see prices being set at $20 a gallon domestically with the excess $8.00 over and above the cost to buy, refine and distribute oil being used to make the country more energy efficient (By providing mass transit, bike lanes and paths, building more concentrated housing, and even encouraging Farmers to go back to using horses and mules).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=266x624

the people who bring up mineral rights have a valid point. how "nationalized" would it be to leave the infrastructure in place, while simply cutting out the shareholders and management?