the profits would pay off the national debt, and about all that would, the Oil was a part of the national commons wealth in the first place.
2007-02-06 05:13:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dragon 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
NO NO NO NO NO!!
Haven't you read the history of the 20th century?
Nationalization = BAD, privatization = GOOD
It is those very profits that drive oil companies to bring us fuel in such quantity, quality, with such efficiency and for so cheaply (they only make a few cents profit on every gallon, and last I checked their profit margin isn't much higher than the average of all industries). Hand over the responsibility of fuel production and distribution to the government and down comes our economy.
This is the historical law of nationalization. Look it up.
That is why we have a little system here in America called capitalism, and since it obviously works better than any other system, as demonstrated, once again, by history, why on earth would we revert to an inferior system?
And do you even know what a police state is or is it just cool to say?
2007-02-06 13:22:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Daniel A: Zionist Pig 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
That statement shows the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals believe that if there is a problem Government is the answer. Conservatives believe that if there is a problem Government will make it worse.
In charge of a police state? My friend have you ever been out of this country? I have been all over the world in my time in the military from 87-95 and you have no idea how lucky you are. Try living an Saudi Arabia, I think that will get you to change your definition of "Police State"
2007-02-06 13:17:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by crazyhorse19682003 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Who are you going to Nationalize?
There are only around five US owned oil comanys, Marathon being one of the largest and the rest not big enough to keep our country going for a week never mind any length of time.
Sjhell Texaco, Chevron, Occidental BP all the rest are less than 5% held in private hands.
WEe could try and Nationalize our oil on our lands except thaty we have already sold almost all of them to international companys.
The great arbument of the North Slope and wilderness oil fields is not being bought by US firms, BP and An Asian firm are largest gaiers in Alaskan oil sel outs and oh yes the Alaskan citizens who get a small cut of it while we almost give it away to oil firms for a very low royalty.
The US recives less than 10% royalty on our national oil fields.
Here is a nice fact for you, most americans do not own the land beneath their homes. In fact less than 5% of all lands supposedly owned by Americans is only on the surface the oil and minerals have been sold long ago and the rights do not belong to them.
Sorry child your nationalized oil is already INTERNATIONALIZED!
That is why today you see only wilderness reamaing to sell oil and natural gas from.
Ask soem fo the homeowners who had all the land around homes dug up for coal. Coal that had been sold a century before and now is in foreign hands, upon your once owned lands.
2007-02-06 13:31:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by theooldman 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
3 points here.
1. Where in the constitution does it declare the government is empowered to nationalize companies?
2. Where would the government get the money to buy the company from?
3. If they earned the profit through their multinational company why shouldn't they keep it?
2007-02-06 13:15:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
What evidence suggests that the government would be able to effectively handle running our oil companies? The federal government has shown itself to be so incapable of handling anything.
Quoting Ronald Reagan: "Government isn't the solution. Government is the Problem."
2007-02-06 13:14:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
What if you owned the stock and you gained financially as a result of the profits, only to have it taken away? You wouldn't like it that much. Michael Moore sure wouldn't. He owns oil stocks.
Naitonalization is a bad thing. It stifles competition. The mergers shouldn't have been permitted, either.
What would happen if Hillary decided any given industry makes too much money. Microsoft?
It'd be one thing if she said "tax those profits to X degree", but her verbiage sounds like she wants all of it. If that's not socialism, I don't know what is.
2007-02-06 13:17:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by MoltarRocks 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Nationalizing any industry is not the answer. If people are upset about the oil company profits quit using so much gas. You can cut down on about anything if you truly want to.
2007-02-06 13:17:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by meathookcook 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
The Mexican people have not benefit ted from the nationalization of their oil industry. The pay higher prices for gas, have a terrible distribution system; it is not uncommon for Mexican stations to be without gasoline to sell.
The Mexican oil industry is in trouble because they refuse to allow foreign nations to invest and they lack the funds to improve their equipment or search for new oil. This will only drive up the price for Mexican citizens.
Nationalization is a loser for all; the Mexicans still pay higher prices and have not benefited at all from nationalization.
I would prefer to have some Oil Execs get rich oil they continue to provide me with relatively cheap gasoline. I would prefer this to giving a few socialists warm fuzzies.
2007-02-06 13:16:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
No. That is socialism.
If you want a share of the profits buy stock in Exxon-Mobile.
2007-02-06 13:12:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by C B 6
·
1⤊
3⤋