Hillary's Marxist Ways

I hardly think that Hillary Clinton announced a governmental take over of the oil industry. On the other hand, the amount of royalties that the government, or actually we the citizens, receive for using our natural resources is a reasonable topic. The oil they drill belongs to us. They lease the rights to drill and produce it, but the ownership still remains in our hands. That is the way the system works. To allow the companies to not pay royalties is like stealing from all of us.

You are correct that the capitalist system is the best designed to maximize innovation. But, that does not mean the government cannot direct this innovation through regulation. The companies that are primarily oil and gas have no current incentive to change that. Evidence the continual breaking of profit records by the industry—how much have they invested in alternative fuels?

The companies make their profit by using our natural resources. It is the government’s job to maximize its return on the sale of using those resources. To just give away our resources while the industry continues to maintain unreasonably high rates is allowing theft from each citizen.

This is not Marxism—it is Capitalism. The government is moderating the fair sale of our resources. What is wrong with that?

As someone who has researched the oil and alternative energy sector extensively for professional reasons, the last thing we need is even more government meddling in another industry. The oil industry is the biggest investor into alternatives (BP=Beyond Petroleum) already. It is not the government's role to "steer" money into ethanol, or solar, or hydrogen or whatever based on political considerations. The world is out of cheap oil. Production is creeping up slowly only because the higher prices makes it worth marketing
"goop". More than 85% of the world's oil suppliers are at peak production. No one wants to invest a single dime in capacity. The government's role, as recommended by the Princeton Press's "The Hydrogen Economy" is to create a supportive environment for the private sector find its way to a solution that may take more than fifty years to develop. Until then, it will be using diverse source like ethanol, solar, hybrid, electric cell, hydrogen (eventually) wind, and so on to see which of these break out from technical innovation. There is nothing that Hillary's plan will accomplish to ease the problem. In fact, by imposing another tax on domestic oil, we will become even more dependent on imported oil. It is blatant political demagoguery because of the public's perception that oil companies are obscenely profitable (a myth). Oil is the cheapest on earth despite its importance being second only to water. We are willing to pay over $2,000 per barrel for our Starbuck's coffee, over $1,200 per barrel for bottled water. Oil is around $59 per barrel. The return on invested capital for the oil industry is very so-so. It is one of the great success stories in human history. We should be marveling not trashing this industry. They are the only ones who can afford to fund the transition away from oil and they are doing it already without government interference. No, what Hillary is proposing is not Marxism, it is just stupid political demagoguery.

Left out a word. Oil is the cheapest LIQUID on earth.

Pasadena Phil writes: Saturday, February, 10, 2007 10:49 PM
==========================================
I work in the industry as well. You did not address the fact that the industry paying royalty is a capitalist idea. The oil belongs to us- they make their money off of production.

Would you be willing to work for free? Why should we not asking a fair price for our natural resources? Why should we not make our profit?

And, hogwash to their profits being so-so.