So why cant those that own the gas charge whatever they want for it?

[mdmc]

I feel your pain at the pump, but isn't that just par for the course? Shouldn't these companies be able to profit as much as they want by selling what they own?

I want to pay nothing for gas and be able to use as much as I want. But I don't own any gas to sell. I see why these oil companies want to profit from the sale of gas. It makes them money.

imho, All we can do is change our lifestyle. So lets do that and let the oil companies fleece the Hummer drivers.

[LakeSamish706]

1. That may be true, but they sure as hell should not be given tax incentives and other...

monies from the Federal Govt. for sure given that logic.

[mdmc]

2. don't they own the politicians?

I gave Obama $17.76 prior to the PA primary. How much did my man get from these corporations? Millions? Why would Obama give me the tax breaks instead of those that brought him to the dance?

[JDPriestly]

9. Could you show the source for your information that Obama

got millions from the corporations. I don't think that is at all true. I believe that most of his donations are rather small. I also believe that he has a massive, possibly the largest and most diverse donor base made up mostly of small donors. Please show me any evidence you have that proves me wrong in my beliefs.

[penguin7]

25. Obama like all the "top tier" started this race with

massive corporate money contributions.

[JDPriestly]

41. Please show me your source or evidence for your statement.

Are you repeating something about Obama that you heard? If so, where did you hear it? Have you seen a list of Obama's alleged corporate sponsors? If so, how much did each corporation give him? What are the names of the corporate sponsors or donor corporations? Where is the list of their names and the amounts of their donations? Who published the list? How did you get a copy? If you can't answer some or all of these questions, then I have no reason to believe that your statement is a statement of fact. I have to view your statement with suspicion.

[DJ13]

3. Why cant store owners in hurricane zones sell $300 generators

.....for $3,000 right after a category 5 hits?

[pitohui]

24. exactly -- price gouging is and should be a criminal offense EOM

,

[mdmc]

29. thing is, we are dealing with an ongoing 'category 5'

fuel will forever be in demand. unlike a hurricane, this is never going away.

the gas shortage shouldn't threaten our lives, but it will change our lives.

[Bob Dobbs]

4. Why are corporations allowed to own natural resources?

They myth of "ownership" is a power elite construct. We should nationalize energy and work together to survive the transition to a post petroleum world. Allowing corporate power elite minorities to dictate energy policies have gotten us into this catastrophe.

The mythological "free market" means that those that control the capital through rules that are set up to ensure the continuity of that control are free to screw everyone else.

[postulater]

6. Especially non-renewable resources

that belong to every life form that ever has or will exist on earth.

What gives them the right to control for their own profit something that nature took millions of years to create?

[ColbertWatcher]

7. Thread over! Nicely done Bob, and welcome to DU! n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. !!!

:thumbsup:

[Rage for Order]

12. Private property is a fundamental aspect of liberty

Corporations can "own" oil because landowners elect to sell the rights to that oil to the corporation, so your question should actually be, "Why are individuals allowed to own natural resources (and, by extension, property)? Oil companies buy the mineral rights from either landowners or the government.

Ownership is not a "power elite construct" anymore than liberty is a "power elite construct".


edit to add: I am not advocating that oil companies be allowed to charge whatever they want for gasoline.

[bean fidhleir]

16. The notion that property is fundamental to liberty comes from the Enlightenment

where "property" meant enough land to live and grow food on. That principle came from the Enclosure Acts that deprived the common people of access to land and thereby deprived them of the right to live.

Property was *NOT* intended by Locke or any of the other Enlightenment theorists to mean owning more than the smallest amount of land needed to live on. That interpretation is nothing but a new Enclosure Act.

[Rage for Order]

17. That doesn't make it any less true

Allowing people to own property and pass it along to their families is fundamental to increasing the wealth and well-being of individuals and their families.

What would be your limit on the amount of property one could own?

[bean fidhleir]

20. "What would be your limit on the amount of property one could own?"

The minimum necessary to live and grow food on, of course.

Anyone who tries to push through the functional equivalent of an Enclosure Act should get the treatment prescribed by Poplicola for would-be kings: execution by the first citizen who can get close enough.

What can possibly be more immoral than depriving the innocent of the means to live in freedom?

[Rage for Order]

22. Who is depriving anyone of the means (land) to live in freedom?

Consider that the federal government owns 650 million acres of land in the US - nearly 30% of the land area of the entire country.

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html

That's more than 2 acres per person in the US, and that doesn't include any land already owned by any of the 300 million people in the US. There's plenty of property in the US to go around and, as you can see from above, plenty of land still available.

What is the minimum amount of property necessary to live on and grow food? You're advocating socialism, which by its very nature will eventually devolve into outright tyranny because at some point, when one acquires what is deemed to be "too much" property, the government will have to seize that property by force. Of course, the amount of allowable property will continue to decrease, until all property is eventually controlled by the state. No thank you.

[bean fidhleir]

26. "socialism, which by its very nature will eventually devolve into outright tyranny"

Oh bullshit. You obviously have no idea what socialism even means, so keep your crazy Randian religion to yourself. Socialism has been working fine for people all over the world for more than 150 years without "devolving into tyranny" of any kind. The Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa is a good example of what socialism can provide when not ruthlessly suppressed by greedy psychopaths who want "all for ourselves and nothing for other people".

[Rage for Order]

27. You and I disagree, and that's fine

I do have more than an idea of what socialism means. I'm not completely against socialism, but I believe it works best within the context of a mainly capitalistic economy, roughly 80%/20% capitalism/socialism. We can't have a Darwinistic society, where only the strong survive - that's a given. However, I also believe in the fundamental right of people to keep the majority of the fruits of their labor. Right now the government - federal, state, and local - takes about 40% of my income through various taxes: income, capital gains, sales, real estate, FICA, Medicare, etc. If they can't function on that large of a percentage then they are downright incompetent.

[bean fidhleir]

31. You may have "more than an idea" about socialism, but it's wrong

Socialist principles state that you get *100%* of the value of your work.

And socialism also requires that everyone who wants to share in the benefits of community membership contribute to the upkeep of the community in proportion to the benefit they're getting from it. So if you're an X who sells your Y into the community and you make a bundle, you have to give back in proportion to that bundle. And if you don't want to do that, then you're excluded from the community and it *all* dries up for you. You don't so much as get to walk on the pavement or take a drink from a tap, because the pavement and the tap are benefits of community membership.

The difference with socialism is that you have an equal say in what "upkeep of the community" means. You're not having to cough up to keep a freeloading ruling class in luxury by paying for their boondoggles and wars. There is no "ten who toil while one reposes", no "special circumstances" that allow one person to declare himself the owner of anyone else's access to necessities. No kings, no priests. Just people living responsibly in communal freedom, where misfortune isn't a death sentence.

[bean fidhleir]

15. Bingo! We have a winnah here, folks. (nt)

[mdmc]

30. welcome to du.

I too am a socialist.

corporations are allowed to own resources because we live in a capitalist democracy.

[bean fidhleir]

34. "we live in a capitalist democracy"

Capitalist oligarchy, I think you meant.

[mdmc]

39. fascist regime

:yes:

[Kitty Herder]

35. Thank you, Bob Dobbs! You stole the words from my mouth.

And welcome to DU!

[asthmaticeog]

5. Take this libertarian shit somewhere else.

You want unregulated markets? You know what, I want you to have them. Seriously. I wish everyone who thought like you could live in a libertarian "utopia" for just six months. Then you'd see why industries need to be regulated and you'd come screaming and crying back to the liberal economic model.

[bill for obama]

14. Oh - why do you think liberal or conservative have anything at

all to do with economic models -

It is really not free market (Adam Smith) stuff in question - it is about who we place our trust in to do the right thing - on the whole. Human beings at the end of the day control the companies that we depend on as a country - and that is OK.

It is a real quesiton - what do the people at the tiller of economy value - is it country, our people (their employees) customer loyalty - what??

See that is the question - a true values question.

[JDPriestly]

8. They can charge whatever they want, but they should not expect

us to subsidize them on top of it, and that is what we are doing right now. We should subsidize alternative energy in order to become independent of foreign oil. We should not subsidize oil.

[bill for obama]

10. See the problem is, I think - they don't own the oil they sell-

and so in a sense they are just glorified commodities brokers here.

And that is the problem - how did that happen? - that they sold their souls to Saudi Arabia -

I don't think that they are good american citizens - not considering the circumstances.

They had obligations to their stockholders and their customers - and chose to become "commodities brokers" - these (dubious) leaders of american business. Capitalism is not on trial here - but the leaders of Chevron and Exxon et al - I have deep questions about their loyalty, ability and business leadership. Very deep questions.

[Kitty Herder]

36. Exactly. Who owns the earth or what is under her surface?

But I disagree about capitalism being on trial here. If it isn't, it should be.

Just to be clear, I don't think a purely socialist system would work either, but capitalism as it is currently practiced is destroying the earth and all who live upon it.

[spotbird]

13. They are

and it will change the world as we know it.

Middle ages were good.

[bill for obama]

18. You guys ever hear the saying - "there is a right way and there is

a wrong way and then there is our way" - ever hear that??

No - we can't change our "lifestyle" without massive displacement in our working class - and they have already been hurt.

We do have very great synthetic reserves of oil - very great.

Certainly enough to transition us off of oil as a primary fuel and without doubling food prices or starting a 3rd world war.

[fed-up]

19. better not think of having children or you will soon be selling them to pay for necessities nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

21. Gas station operators are generally not profiteering

In a few stations, I've seen the operators tape their invoices to the door so people can see they're
paying obscene prices, too.

I look at it this way: the business of driving cars has historically been subsidized to a great extent
throughout history: oil companies, car makers, roads, and even residential developments. If our consumer
decisions have been affected by subsidies that have been inflated away, and if the oil companies are
now capturing ALL the gains from trade, then there is a serious problem that requires government intervention.
Minimally, a windfall tax seems appropriate.

[pitohui]

23. why can't big pharma charge whatever they want for it?

because it's wrong when you're talking about a national resource that is necessary for human survival

i don't have a problem with somebody charging whatever they can get for a gambling chip, a video game, or a painting -- those are "nice to haves" not "have to haves"

i have a big big BIG problem with somebody charging whatever they can get by holding human life hostage and by destroying my future and the future of all other working people

oil is not a trinket like gold, it is a vital resource and should not be sold for profit but instead should be managed for the best health of the entire economy -- just as any decent person believes that universal health care should also be a public resource and a human right

if you don't see the difference, sleep on it, you're a bright person, you should be able to figure it out

[bean fidhleir]

32. Splendidly said! Oil is indeed not a trinket, it's a necessity of life right now

and should be treated as such while we get the hell out from under it.

[varelse]

28. On the day that they begin to pay the cost of that ownership

with their own blood and the blood of their own children, then we can consider a conversation about their right to charge "whatever they want" for the oil they control. But on that day, I suspect we'll all be too busy commenting on the flying pigs, demons ice-skating, and monkeys flying out into the sunshine to bother with the boring stuff like the free market myth.

[Kitty Herder]

37. Well said. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Because it is not all owned by the same person, and others will undersell them

[Canuckistanian]

38. The oil companies must LOVE you

I wouldn't be surprised if they use some of your post to defend their price gouging.

This situation has gone FAR beyond mere "supply and demand".

Rampant speculation, ZERO price competition between companies and shadowy machinations at Goldman Sachs (the REAL price-setter) make a mockery of the "invisible hand" that's supposed to benefit ALL parties.

Well, the consumer ain't benefitting and the oil companies are making RECORD profits.

What's wrong with this picture?

[mdmc]

40. it all needs to change

all
yikes