Would you ever vote for a fascist?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't think effectively running the industry is the point, but rather that the profits of an American-held resource should primarily benefit Americans. It's a nationalist sentiment, I know, but in a depression, you have to first and foremost look after your own needs, and in a time when gas prices are approaching $15 a gallon, it would be awfully appealing.

But if the company is not run effectively, it will start to run losses, and then taxpayer money will have to be used to keep it operational. Then you have the people paying twice to get that nationalized oil.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but that's far easier said than done.

Also remember there may be unintended consequences to any policy. The costs of alternative energy sources available now are so prohibitive compared to the cost of oil that to force their use could dramatically raise the cost of living and impoverish millions. Think of how many different facets of American life are currently dependent on the availability of relatively cheap fossil fuels.

[RI]

I don't think effectively running the industry is the point, but rather that the profits of an American-held resource should primarily benefit Americans. It's a nationalist sentiment, I know, but in a depression, you have to first and foremost look after your own needs, and in a time when gas prices are approaching $15 a gallon, it would be awfully appealing.

But if the company is not run effectively, it will start to run losses, and then taxpayer money will have to be used to keep it operational. Then you have the people paying twice to get that nationalized oil.

There is a difference between running something less than perfectly and running it into the ground. I suppose I have faith in the government to not be that bad. I'm sure that is something that we'll have to disagree on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but that's far easier said than done.

Also remember there may be unintended consequences to any policy. The costs of alternative energy sources available now are so prohibitive compared to the cost of oil that to force their use could dramatically raise the cost of living and impoverish millions. Think of how many different facets of American life are currently dependent on the availability of relatively cheap fossil fuels.
[/quote]

Today, it’s true, but massive investment and subsidization in this would dramatically help. Also this is taking place in the future. Regardless, the premise of this is that fossil fuels are now extremely expensive and therefore there is very little incentive to continue the current course. I think that these considerations make the outlook a lot more upbeat than you present.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't think effectively running the industry is the point, but rather that the profits of an American-held resource should primarily benefit Americans. It's a nationalist sentiment, I know, but in a depression, you have to first and foremost look after your own needs, and in a time when gas prices are approaching $15 a gallon, it would be awfully appealing.

But if the company is not run effectively, it will start to run losses, and then taxpayer money will have to be used to keep it operational. Then you have the people paying twice to get that nationalized oil.

There is a difference between running something less than perfectly and running it into the ground. I suppose I have faith in the government to not be that bad. I'm sure that is something that we'll have to disagree on.

Perhaps, but do consider the fact that our nationalized railroad Amtrak has never recorded a profit in it's 39 years of existence, instead being dependent entirely on taxpayer subsidies.


I think the people who work in the industry would be it's best owners and managers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but that's far easier said than done.

Also remember there may be unintended consequences to any policy. The costs of alternative energy sources available now are so prohibitive compared to the cost of oil that to force their use could dramatically raise the cost of living and impoverish millions. Think of how many different facets of American life are currently dependent on the availability of relatively cheap fossil fuels.
[/quote]

Today, it’s true, but massive investment and subsidization in this would dramatically help. Also this is taking place in the future. Regardless, the premise of this is that fossil fuels are now extremely expensive and therefore there is very little incentive to continue the current course. I think that these considerations make the outlook a lot more upbeat than you present.[/quote]

Well I guess if you have the sort of perfect storm of circumstances you've been talking about, it wouldn't be that far out of the question. But that's a pretty big if.

[RI]

I don't think effectively running the industry is the point, but rather that the profits of an American-held resource should primarily benefit Americans. It's a nationalist sentiment, I know, but in a depression, you have to first and foremost look after your own needs, and in a time when gas prices are approaching $15 a gallon, it would be awfully appealing.

But if the company is not run effectively, it will start to run losses, and then taxpayer money will have to be used to keep it operational. Then you have the people paying twice to get that nationalized oil.

There is a difference between running something less than perfectly and running it into the ground. I suppose I have faith in the government to not be that bad. I'm sure that is something that we'll have to disagree on.

Perhaps, but do consider the fact that our nationalized railroad Amtrak has never recorded a profit in it's 39 years of existence, instead being dependent entirely on taxpayer subsidies.

I think the people who work in the industry would be it's best owners and managers.

Well, Amtrak was never in an industry that was turning in billions in profits, though. Not quite the same. Plus there is no reason the best owners and managers couldn’t be folded into the new management. Either way, it’s not my choice, but it wouldn’t be a bad thing. Just my opinion.