Considering we already subsidize its exploration, drilling and refining with tax dollars, and it is a resource from public lands to begin with.
And considering it's such of tantamount importance to our economy so they say ... seems like what the oil companies are doing therefore is called "EXTORTION"
2007-10-29 06:35:06 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course this would only apply to oil drilled in the US, of which there isn't much left. Foreign oil, the oil companies stole that fair & square.
It isn't just oil! All our public-owned resources are basically given away to the well-connected. BLM land for grazing cattle and mining, federally-owned forests and rivers, the broadcast spectrum etc. are sold for prices way beneath their actual value, or just -given- away.
I'll give you another example. President Clinton proposed a program to vaccinate every kid in the US. The Fed. Govt. was going to buy millions of doses of vaccines from the major vaccine mfgrs. and make them available to everyone. Under the plan the mfgrs. would have made a fair profit. But the drug companies killed the plan because they realized that they could make -more- profit by only vaccinating kids whose parents could afford the retail prices. In other words, the highest priority here was the maximum profits of drug companies, not vaccinating the maximum number of kids. The thing that makes this story relevant is that the vaccines were all developed at public cost.
2007-10-29 06:47:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You should pay for anything you want to buy. Maybe there should be more regulation since it isn't a free market situation (or less regulation to try to make it a free market), but I don't want to see the government taking over any corporations.
The big issues that stop supply and demand from working their finest are that about half of what you pay at the pump is an excise tax, and that so much money is pumped into energy by the government. The libertarian in me would like to see both of those practices stopped so that a fair price for gas would be maintained by the free market. But something in the back of my mind says we shouldn't. It makes sense to tax gas to pay for roads--the people using the gas use the roads. It makes sense to quit giving r & d money to oil companies, but what would the real effect of that be? A fair price for oil--or a shortage.
This problem is too tricky for simple, pat, politically driven answers. Socialism, capitalism, and that in-between regulated capitalism all seem like they'd have their problems and their benefits with regard to gasoline. The only thing that really disgusts me is that during shortages, oil companies show record profits. What other business makes more money the less it sells?
2007-10-29 06:55:11 · answer #2 · answered by wayfaroutthere 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simon,
Why do you guys continue to blame "big oil" when Uncle Sam is making FAR more money on oil that the companies?
I know why, because if too many people learn the truth it will cut funding for all of those garbage social services!
2007-10-29 06:48:12 · answer #3 · answered by elmar66 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Should there be some sort of regulation, yes. Oil companies are showing quarterly record profits at our expense. But as for calling it extortion, you've taken it to extreme. That's like saying "We shouldn't pay for food, farmers=extortion".
2007-10-29 06:43:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Do you not realize how cheap gasoline is? The oil companies have to drill, refine, process and distribute and it only costs you less than $3.00 a gallon. A gallon of gasoline is cheaper than bottled water, milk, ice cream and everything else you buy. The price of gas would be a lot cheaper if there weren't so many taxes on each gallon.
2007-10-29 06:40:18 · answer #5 · answered by Luv2Answer 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No extortion is what the IRS does!! Would you rather the Government drill and refine the oil?? You think prices are high now!!
2007-10-29 06:38:32 · answer #6 · answered by TyranusXX 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If Hilary is elected, she will take all of the gas from big oil companies, and distribute it evenly amongst the population. She will raise taxes in order to pay the big oil companies the revenue that she feels they deserve.
2007-10-29 06:40:19 · answer #7 · answered by Brad the Fox 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I can only assume that you are suggesting the nationalization of the oil companies.
Take a trip to Ecuador and see how that's working out for them.
2007-10-29 06:42:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
History has proven that the free market better supplies the goods and services that modern life requires. Government take over of industries always result in shortages.
2007-10-29 06:42:01 · answer #9 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oh brother, that is some really warped logic. Of course, using that logic you could also make that claim about milk.
Oops, I forgot. Big milk isn't as scary sounding as big oil.
2007-10-29 06:39:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋