So, you want the Government to regulate the oil industry huh?

I would just like for government to regulate inflation. That will take care of the oil cost.

I don't want US Government involved AT ALL! If it is regulated it will be done by the US Congress with legislation. And look at their track record.

The tax codes are too heavy to be put in a 1/2 ton pickup in paper form. Not to mention they have more holes than Swiss Cheese.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are in BIG trouble in the near future.

Their regulation of the housing industry has put this country in a financial crisis.

IF they did attempt to regulate the oil industry what would they do? Say you can't charge more than X dollars a gallon? what if they oil companies can't turn a profit? You think they will make more gasoline? If government raises their taxes won't they just pass it on to consumers? And GOD forbid they should pull a Hugo Chavez and nationalize the oil industry. That would be an even worse fiasco.

Amtrak has never shown a profit.

why not regulate them ?

They get the benefit of using OUR PUBLIC RESOURCES !

We've given away thousands of miles of coastlines to these companies...large chunks of national forest reserves for pennies !...

What are they giving back ?...NOTHING.

There is a difference between profit and PRICE GOUGING...and if you can't understand that then there is nothing to discuss.

You really think they should be allowed to do this ?

REGULATION IS NECESSARY IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY !...practicaly every bust in the stock markets history can be blamed on lack of government oversight.

the hands off approach that we've had is the problem...big oil is holding America hostage... they have more power to influence the government then the people...and that my friend is the definition of FASCISM !

AT A MINIMUM - they should't be getting these HUGE tax breaks as a reward for screwing over consumers as they post 10 quarters of RECORD SETTING PROFITS ! That makes no sense at all, since the oil industry tax breaks will NOT translate into MORE JOBS or CHEAPER GASOLINE !

We have the FCC that regulates the airwaves, and the FAA that regulates the skies.

Why shouldn't we regulate an industry that is so closely tied to our national security?

The oil companies need some oversight.

I don't care how much drilling we open up for them, the oil companies are under zero obligation to keep this oil at home for America...they'll simply place it in the commodities market and get the highest price.

If the oil companies don't want regulation, they can give up all their tax subsidies.

The energy sector is probably the highest-regulated industry there is, other than govt-contracting (e.g., defense) and possibly healthcare (if you include state-level regulation).

Maybe it needs to be better regulated, maybe some streamlining is needed - not saying things are ideal now - just pointing out, when people say it's an unreglated industry, that's just not the case.

Nope. I think regulation pulls us more towards socialism and command economies. As history has clearly shown, such systems ultimately fail. A free market system, in the truest sense of the phrase, is best.

1. Yes. Especially now that they are wiretapping us.

2. I'm not stripping anyone of anything. I'm just stopping the crime we all now oil companies are commiting today.

There's more to life than the pursuit of insane profits.

Not me. I'm with you. I want to stress though that the oil industry is far from being a free market today. I think that a new entrant would find it very difficult to compete.

A free market would have the following advantages:

1. Without barriers to entry, unjustifiably high profits attract competition. The competition would bid down prices (subject to varying qualities) toward a level set by the lowest priced firm able to do the job.

2. Allowing more competition would provide additional incentive to cut expenses in the search for profits. A firm able to lower its price without sacrificing profits could take business away from less efficient firms that didn't lower their prices.

3. If the less efficient firms accepted lower profits in order to keep business, the more efficient firms would accumulate more capital and so would be able to expand operations beyond what the less efficient firms could do. Free markets reward firms that do their jobs well. This is a boon to society.

4. If prices are high because of supply restrictions (as many oil industry observers claim [1] [2]), the high prices signal to consumers to conserve. By simply allowing prices to be set competitively, we accomplish the goals of the conservation movements without all of the ill-effects of government intervention.

How does this apply to the oil industry?

It should be stressed that no solution will assure perfect solutions [3]. Leaving it in the hands politicians as is largely the case today (and as is proposed to be even more the case for people demanding more intervention) is to leave it up to people who are not experts in the field. Even worse, they are subject to acting in their self interest. Since there is massive wealth in the oil industry, there is a great deal of interest to go along. Not taking account for this is naive in the extreme.

If we remove current government interventions, entrepreneurs would need only find new sources of oil and extract it. People opposed to extracting the oil (for environmental or other reasons) would have the option to encourage like-minded people to bid for the property and purchase it for the purpose of conservation. If they were able to amass a high enough bid, it would be profitable for entrepreneurs to sell the property rather than produce oil.

Assume now that no sizeable new sources of oil exist (as "peak oil" advocates will tell you is largely the case - ANWR and other untapped sources notwithstanding). Competition would operate to bid against existing sources. An example will illustrate how this might work. Suppose that the current owner of a field estimates that future production will yield $1B. Being a clever person, you estimate that you could institute more efficient production methods and pull down a profit of $1.5B. Furthermore, you are able to convince investors that you can do it [4]. You and your investors tender an offer of $1.25B. Being more than what the existing owner estimates he can make, he accepts your offer. If you are successful, you lower price and/or increase supply while making a nice profit for yourself. If you fail, the providers of capital will remember that the next time you have a great idea. A person who fails too badly or too consistently will find that he will no longer have the ability to summon large amounts of capital.

Now, suppose that all the possible efficiency has been squeezed out of oil production while prices remain high and supply lags demand. This will signal entrepreneurs to develop alternatives. The process explained above will continue in their efforts. Meanwhile, higher prices will signal to consumers to conserve and adapt, thereby insuring against the possibility that entrepreneurs will be unable to completely replace the energy obtained from oil.

I hope that this wasn't too long or too esoteric. In summary, the free market does work. There are never any guarantees in life, but allowing people to freely and peacefully do business seems a no-brain best choice. I dwelled only briefly upon the disadvantages of allowing politicians to coercively implement "solutions". Much more could be said for the disasters that they wreck. Let's let liberty (and free markets) do the job!

ADDITION to my answer in response to xuserx2000:

"REGULATION IS NECESSARY IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY" LOL! A free market is by definition a market without regulation.

I agree with you though in your next statements:

"big oil is holding America hostage... they have more power to influence the government then the people...and that my friend is the definition of FASCISM"

If they have such influence, what makes you think that they will cease to be able to so influence government if we switch from a fascist model to a socialist one? The answer to that question might shed some light on why full-blown fascist and full-blown socialist states have had similar results.

I also agree with your comment regarding their tax breaks but only because it gives them unfair advantage over their competition who must pay full taxes. Rather than increase government wealth and power (as you imply is your prefered solution), I would rather eliminate the burden on their competitors. I hope that my answer above stands on its own as an explanation for my preference.

Condi needs another oil tanker, poor thing.

The commies don't get. Actually they do and they don't care. Power is the ultimate objective.