POLL: Democrats are calling for nationalization of the oil industry. Do you feel the government should also nationalize (salaries, death)

[ProudCapMarine]

Originally Posted by AksarbeN

Well lets see if I can think of a few Global Crossing, Tyco, HDR, Halliburton, Blackwater, Anderson Consulting, all seemed to have in the past or present affected the stock market, the economy of the nation, stockholders, operated in improperly with government contracts, acquired government money falsely, moved corporate offices offshore to Abu Dhabi U.A.E. and other locations to avoid taxes and government requirements under the U.S. laws. And don’t forget several of the major housing retailers for sales and mortgage companies that have caused the housing bubble where everyone looked the other way on qualified buyers. Yeah,,, everyone is self regulated and controlled very well without government monitoring. Just because some things may not be against the law doesn’t mean that it’s ethical, moral or right!

Corruption seems to be the norm with corporations and big business with or without government.

Corruption is at all levels of government. What should we do...?

[AksarbeN]

Obviously people both in government and corporations need to be monitored and held accountable for their actions should there be improprieties of illegal acts, ethical or moral failures on their part. Looking the other way and ignoring the problem hasn’t been working so far, has it? But then many of the problems are do to the buddy system that’s in place ~ forgive and forget. Whistle blowing seems to help bring failures the surface to be viewed and acted upon.

[bluskyz]

Originally Posted by ProudCapMarine

Democrats are calling for nationalization of the oil industry. Do you feel the government should also nationalize America's farmland.
Video "Cavuto nat" | sevenload

I feel certain that people of various political persuasions have considered the nationalization of our oil co's. I would strongly approve. Tablemtn's post suggests a good idea IMO.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by babyorr9

I appreciate your brevity harborlady. If my knowledge of renewables is lacking, I'm sorry, though thats not the problem. I share your optimism of what our future holds. New technologies will one day make our dependence on oil trivial. However, what I do not share is your conspiracy theory regarding "big oil" and renewables. The convergence of ingenuity, timing, pinache and downright luck that it would take to woo the American consumer simply hasn't yet existed. Many have tried; all have failed. The ability to build a quality vehicle with excellent gas mileage has been around for many years,Before Modern SUV Downturn, a 41-MPG Compact-Car Revolution for the Post-Truman Set: Time Machine (April 1954) - Popular Mechanics

Please, lets not kid ourselves though. Create a fuel efficient vehicle that Americans WANT to buy, and all these worries of oil will cease to exist. It hasn't existed yet. No evil oil company has blocked its creation. The men in black haven't haven't seized patents. The illuminati don't hold the key. We do. And we will find it.

Brevity... Short and sweet? It doesn't matter if you believe me despite my career in oil industry. I know what I know based on first hand knowledge and concerted efforts to find a way around the problems that afflict us universally. Not to force anyone into a solution, but merely to remove myself from participating in the sickness in conscientious objector fashion. Don't take my word for it- educate yourself and find the solutions for yourself. The truth stands on its own merit without glamour.

There are engines in the smithsonian museum collecting dust dated back to early 1900's that get better gas mileage than most vehicles today. The patents are locked up, and I assure you it's not the sierra club doing it. What's wrong with this picture? Go on and do your research if you want to know.

[GregW]

I was listening to the House debate on Oil Leases on public lands. It seems that oil companies have been renting leases (63 million acres on and off shore) to keep anyone from exploring the possibilities of developing the oil. Apparently even the Navel Petroleum Reserve in Northern Alaska has been drilled and the wells capped. In any case the house passed a bill requiring the leaseholders to actually do the exploration and investigation or the lease can be rebid not just continued for a nominal rent. The Republicans from Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma were livid. The Dems kept ending their speeches with “Use it or loose it.”
I think all natural resources are owned by the people and that companies should be hired to explore and develop these resources while the actual ownership of the resource remains owned by the people and the profit from the sales covers the cost of development and is returned to the general fund to be spent as the public desires.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by GregW

I was listening to the House debate on Oil Leases on public lands. It seems that oil companies have been renting leases (63 million acres on and off shore) to keep anyone from exploring the possibilities of developing the oil. Apparently even the Navel Petroleum Reserve in Northern Alaska has been drilled and the wells capped. In any case the house passed a bill requiring the leaseholders to actually do the exploration and investigation or the lease can be rebid not just continued for a nominal rent. The Republicans from Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma were livid. The Dems kept ending their speeches with “Use it or loose it.”
I think all natural resources are owned by the people and that companies should be hired to explore and develop these resources while the actual ownership of the resource remains owned by the people and the profit from the sales covers the cost of development and is returned to the general fund to be spent as the public desires.

THANK YOU!!!! It's our damned oil!! AND... its fetching a pretty high price on open market in case anyone hasn't noticed. See them as sharecroppers instead, suddenly the light comes on. Dems in congress will not allow ANWR because oil wants a crooked deal and give nothing back to america.

Y'all can sing the new tune they taught me in west virginny--- this land is MY land, this lands not YOUR land...

[odinloki1]

I'm fine with keeping the government out of farming with one exception. Protection of farmland. For example, citrus farmers that sell out to developers so citrus farms which supply the country can be turned into the latest suburb. This doesn't make sense. Yes we may have too much farmland now, but last I checked, our population is increasing. I just want land zoned for farming and kept that way. I don't care for big agriculture, but thats another post.

[odinloki1]

Originally Posted by ProudCapMarine

Corruption is at all levels of government. What should we do...?

There needs to be a proper balance between the two and they need to maintain a somewhat adversarial relationship. Otherwise in a free market, corporations will buy up one another and lobby the government effectively until there is a monopoly. Look at the FCC and the FDA. Look at the airline industry.

A corporations job is going to be extracting as much money from the consumer. The governments job should be to prevent the corporate world from harming people in the process (like lead toys, and salmonella and e. coli in our food)

The problem right now is that the scales have been tipped far too much toward the corporate world.

[babyorr9]

Originally Posted by harborlady

There are engines in the smithsonian museum collecting dust dated back to early 1900's that get better gas mileage than most vehicles today. The patents are locked up, and I assure you it's not the sierra club doing it. What's wrong with this picture? Go on and do your research if you want to know.

harborlady, if you don't mind, can you please point me towards info concerning these engines. I can't seem to find them. I know that many engines of yesteryear had fuel efficiency close to or better than what we have now, but at drastically reduced power levels. Are those the engines that you speak of?

[GregW]

Modern gasoline and diesel automobile engines are way better than previous designs. For instance my Subaru has overhead cams, moderately high compression, aluminum cylinder block and electronic fuel injection. It provides as much power and fuel efficiency of racing engines of the 1960s. The only historic engines that come close are the Offenhauser racing engines.
The reason earlier vehicles may have gotten better mileage is lower power and much lower weight. We had a 1965 VW Beetle with a 1200 cc engine driving a 1350 lb. car. The car did not have air bags or crush zones or much power. That car could not keep up with modern traffic at all. Not to mention that, until I modified the suspension, the handling was truly evil and dangerous. It delivered 35 mpg.
Modern cars have reduced fuel mileage because reformulated gasoline with 10% alcohol have less energy per gallon so it takes more gallons to go a given distance. When you add up heavier cars, higher speeds and less energetic gasoline modern cars will not get better mileage than their predecessors.
Given a choice between our old Beetle at 35 mpg and my 12 yr old Subie at 25 mpg I’ll take the Subie any day. It is safer, faster, more secure and the best snow car (the modified Beetle was very good) I have ever driven. My next car will be a 6 yr old Toyota Corolla that should combine all the modern virtues with decent gas mileage.