The free market is the problem. Should the U.S. nationalize oil production?

Oil company CEOs are on record telling us that when the price of gas is low, it's difficult to turn a profit, and they're under pressure from investors to keep production low and prices high for guaranteed profits. They have no interest in increasing supply right now, so they're not taking advantage of any of the almost 10,000 drilling permits available. Capitalism and free market is the problem here. Oil company profits are up 300% from last year.

I was smart enough to at least buy a hybrid, so gas has to get to $6.50/gal before I'm paying what I was with my previous vehicle with gas at $3/gal, but most people are dumb and shun hybrids and EVs.

One simple solution is to nationalize oil production on federally owned land. If competition is good for business and consumers, why does that preclude the people of the U.S. competing with private industry? In Venezuela, a place the right loves to bemoan a socialist nightmare, gas is $.08 per gallon. Eight cents. Clearly the free market is inadequate.

Time to nationalize oil production?

Gas prices are high. Oil CEOs reveal why they're not drilling more - CNN

Is this supposed to be a serious topic? I don't want to waste my time with a real response if it is just a troll.

The government is here to help, comrade.

While this is obviously a bad idea. I do see where the TC is coming from. But if you look into it a bit more. You will also see why nationalizing a natural resource is extremely dangerous. Look no further than the OPEC+ nations, who play a large part in this crisis.

I said it before and I will say it again. The only real solution I see from here on out is to end our addiction to fossil fuels. The reason the oil giants can get away with this is because we as consumers allow them to.

We will always need crude oil of course, but we are consuming far more oil than what is necessary.

It is a talking point I see float around occasionally. And I can see why. If you turn off your brain for a second, it might actually sound like a good idea.

No. Dumb idea.

Don't know enough to say one way or the other, but I'm all for competition. Perhaps big fed can find a way to step in w/ the hopes of making the industry more competitive.

So just so I understand - no one wants to take the oil that we as citizens already own on federal lands and use it to benefit ourselves, but instead want to rely on for profit corporations to take that oil from public lands, which is already owned by the people, and sell it back to us at $5 or $6 per gallon? OMFG 🤣

Is it? If profits are to be maintained or grow above all else, oil producers have little incentive to increase production unless that itself leads to increased profits. If gas gets expensive enough US might face a recession because of it. Should the government then A hand out money to its citizens, or B force the companies producing oil to increase the production/lower their price through legislation?

I know we are still quite far away from both options, but these are ideas that might pop up again and gain traction if this continues long enough.

Even if they did it might at best just supply a small percentage of our energy needs as foreign oil still largely controls price. Plus worldwide there will be decreased output in coming years as oil reserves are used up, remaining oil will be harder to extract and refine, and worldwide demand increases.

If government needs to lead the charge on anything it's getting off our reliance on oil. It would require a radical shift to our ways of life that there isn't the political will for politicians or voters to consider until its a problem too big to fix. People would rather bury their heads and wish life could just go back to normal.

What if the entire gas/oil industry is nationalized and the incumbent party weaponizes it for elections, economic stats, etc.?

Sure. Why wouldn't it be? 26% of all oil production is currently done in federal waters and on federal lands, lands and waters owned by the American people. Why are we allowing private, for-profit corporations to take publicly owned resources and sell them back to the people who own them in the first place? That's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Most of the world has already nationalized healthcare or health insurance and most places compete with private industry. Why should something as essential as oil be any different?

We could even do something like the Alaska Permanent Fund, nationwide. Oil producers could drill on private land as much as they want, but they should not have free reign over public lands with resources, selling you oil you already own. If you guys can't see how stupid that is, there is no hope for any of you.

As with all things, the key is balance.

Corporations have been allowed to buy our government from us and control the politicians. We need to apply rules that limit their power a lot, or at least to a degree they hold less power than the people of this country.

People > government (run by the people) > social programs/education > private ownership > corporations

That should be the hierarchy.

Blame the SC for that.

How so?

That's the big question capitalism doesn't like being asked. Mostly because the billionaires who own the markets will make sure you think what they want you to think, which is you serving them. Capitalism created this self-serving dicotomy where the market must be freer than the people it serves and those who question it are the enemy.

Very difficult to draw a line but yeah governments should own strategic resources and/or be able to exert control when needed. No doubt it's a valid discussion to have. The free market serves itself and the benefits for society are accidental, which for the most part works well enough but again, they're accidental.

Supreme Court allows corporate political cash

The Corporate Takeover of American Democracy

Yup.

As with all things political and/or economic these days, it has devolved into theater. People perceive it as cultural when it is not. If we all united together based on our income levels, something that unites us far more than regional or racial demographics, we could take the power back. But instead we divide ourselves, or rather we let ourselves be divided.

Meanwhile Elon Musk is laying off 10% of his workforce while personally taking a 24-billion dollar payment. And yet many people will defend him, saying "Why shouldn't he?", while some of the smarter ones will argue about how much taxes he payed. The irony of course is things would be better if he paid people better.

Funny, isn't it: things are better for everyone when things are better for everyone.

The founding fathers despised corporations, even wanted to limit the business any corporation could do to 30 years. Republicans on the SC made corporations people, another way the Republican party ruined this country.

Better do what right wingers do: claim that the free market will fix everything and then blame the dem government for rising prices, demand the government to do something and then scream COMMUNISM when they try to regulate profits.

Neither of those answer the question. They discuss things from the perspective that it must be true but fails to explain how.

@tjandmia: This is largely the system in China.

Most oil companies in China are partly state-owned and the price of certain essential commodities is set by the government. Even the small private players in the sector have to adhere to prices set by the government.

This works in China, but it won't work in the US, not without a massive overhaul of many sectors because one sector's losses are covered by another sector's profits to balance things out. If things take a massive downturn, the government can even use taxation to cover losses, and tap into foreign exchange reserves and savings.

So to make this work, there needs to be nationalisation of several industries to cover each other at the very least, or it will be taxation and or savings. But the US is not even in the top 10 country rankings for foreign exchange reserves and savings.

In the past decade, China has started to move away from this system but currently, it has helped China to keep inflation under control, April 2022 was just 2.10%.

There are pros and cons to this sort of system and I don't think it sits well with how the US has traditionally been operated.

The US probably needs some sort of protocol for trying times instead of nationalisation. But I can certainly see your point.

So you're saying for the U.S. gov't to outsource the drilling, or have the army corp of engineers drill for oil on public lands and waters, it would need to nationalize more industries for some odd reason?

@tjandmia: Kinda....because if you nationalise a large part of the oil production in the US, what will happen if oil prices take a huge downturn and become unprofitable? It wasn't so long ago when oil prices turned negative.

Do you shut down the nationalised oil company, cut down the workforce or ask for a public bailout (taxpayer's money)?

None of those methods are attractive, but if you have other parts of the industry that are also nationalised then profits from that sector can prop up the losses in the oil sector.

Do we shut down government when it runs a deficit and only keep it open when it runs a surplus? When you nationalize something, it becomes a public service. It doesn't have to turn a profit. This whole mindset that everything should turn a profit is why everything we need is so expensive. Capitalism has poisoned our thinking. Can't we just ever do things because they're good for us?