B smith

Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong

How about if we "nationalize" our national lands. We already own the land that leases are bid out on. A problem we have now in the U.S. is that if we drill more, it increases the world output, and if China increases imports, what have you done? Not much.

To get control back of our national resources, we might open new fields: Nat gas, oil shale, coal gasification, and require all US leases of federal land have pricing of raw product sold in the U.S. at a price determined by the department of Energy.

We then import the rest at world prices or buy contracts for futures or purchase leases from other countries and the average is the price we pay. The goal is to increase U.S. production until we are energy sufficient.

Under some kind of system like this, which is not as tied to world production or world usage, we would have more control of our future.

By the way I am a free market capitalist all the way. However I think some new ideas are needed with reference to being under the thumb of "world trade" with no restrictions to "world" pricing.

China seems to purchase mines and companies to supply their future material and commodity needs. We need to wake up and take better care of our own economic interests.

Another idea is to negotiate with China and India to set Oil import caps for those countries, under a new nafta chapter. Otherwise we can cutback usage here, and they use even more, and world prices
continue to rise. Supply will most likely not rise for some time, because it is not in the economic interests of the producers to increase production or exploration, when they can get price increases for not doing so.

And.. or we should place a tax per barrel on oil, with the goal of creating a floor under gas and oil prices, to stimulate private investment in alternative energy. Proceeds would go into research , tax credits to offset environmental energy cost requirements, and credits to low income and some moderate income rebates to cover some of the burden of higher fuel and food costs.

We also need a "national equation" that factors in things like unemployment level, oil cost, food costs, interest rates, tax rates, environmental regulation costs, etc. so we could all see what happens so each part of the equation when we change another part.
This would help lessen some of the political one issue discussions, as the impact of any policy change would show the relevant change in the other factors. An example would be if you substantially raise the environmental cost through tougher air standards, given all else equal what happens to the other factors. We could then discuss in a rational intelligent manner the expected results of making changes happen. Change is going to happen... but Do we feel lucky? Should we just change because we feel things can get no worse? Things can get a lot better.. or things can get a lot worse. Lets be careful what we change.

Of course welcoming all comments.