Just a question. If energy production in the US was nationalized, what would a gallon of gas cost?

[maxrandb]

I don't understand why, with the immense importance that energy plays in our country, it is not run by a GS16 making $120K a year, vice a CEO making $20-30 Billion a year.

Energy seems about as important to our sovereignty as the military.

The entire military is run by a government employee making a few hundred K a year, supported by an appointed Senior Executive Service government employee making a couple hundred K a year.

Both of these employees, and those serving under them, are answerable to the American people.

Talk me down, because I don't think something so critical to our nations security should be in the hands of billionaires that don't give a fuck about our national security.

[Hugin]

1. After the break up of Standard Oil by Teddy...

It largely was, peaking around WWII. Especially refining.

But, by the ‘80s, the GOCOs were phased out by attrition. Now, about all that is left is the strategic reserves. The volume of which is of course a closely guarded secret. TFG was doing his best to drain those and hand his cronies the assets at pennies on the dollar, if not outright.

[Bettie]

2. I wonder this sometimes too and all I get is

"billionaires understand it better" or "we can't take it from them they'd be angry".

[gab13by13]

3. The price of oil is supposed to be set globally.

With that said we have our own American oligarchs. 50 years ago president Nixon gave a speech stating that the US needed to rid itself of dependance on foreign oil by exploring alternative energy production, and that was back when alternative energy was way more expensive than fossil fuels.

Today, instead of politicians talking about ridding ourselves of fossil fuels they have brought back, "drill baby drill."

[Leftofthefairway25]

4. Firstly your numbers are oddly off

The GS scale stops at GS-15 there are no 16s. There would be an SES. Also, the pay you suggested is decades off as GS-11s would get up to 120 (with leap) or any old gs-12 in the DC area.

That being said, I think the gov should definitely nationalize our critical infrastructure, including transportation fuel!

[Chainfire]

6. While they are at it, healthcare would be another great product to nationalize.

We don't need buzzards making billions off of other people's illnesses. We don't need a system where you only get the medical care that you can afford.

[PatrickforB]

36. YES!!!!! I'd definitely be on board with

[KS Toronado]

11. Welcome to DU!

[BumRushDaShow]

12. One can offer up the scale

This is the "non-locality pay" version which would be the base -

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/22Tables/html/GS.aspx



(I used to call the SESs "GS-1000s" because "GS-16" just wasn't enough. )

[Volaris]

5. I dont think you're wrong, but changing something like that would take decades..

A publicly, taxpayer-owned energy company is a wonderful idea.
So is a citizen-owned national credit union, run out of the dept of the treasury (I'd use it to make simple-interest mortgage loans to people---but again, TPTB would raise so much hell it would take decades to work properly...see CFPB as a reference).

The only thing these people hate more than being called out for their greed, is something being done about it

[Hugin]

8. "Gadzooks! The peasantry having access to discretionary assets!"

“Are you mad?”

“They would simply blow it on drugs or abortions!”

That is literally the reply I have received when I have broached even education grants or simple interest loans from a Post Office bank. Forget a UGI “Universal Guaranteed Income”.

Mind you, these replies are from those who nominally consider themselves to be progressive if not liberal.

[Volaris]

13. Sounds about right lol.

'But, if The Plebes and the Filthy Poors have their own money, how can I charge them interest for having to borrow MINE?!'

[Hugin]

15. There's the bottom line.

No doubt.

[moose65]

7. I think you're right

In this day and age, energy is a necessity of life, and whether we like it or not, oil is going to be a part of that mix for many years to come. Yes, we should invest in public transit and in alternative fuels. But that's going to take a LONG time. We are stuck with oil right now, so how can it be made better?

For one thing, I don't think we are back to pre-pandemic levels as far as oil production here in the US. For another, we should BAN the exportation of oil and gas, at least temporarily. There is no good reason why we should be exporting any of that right now!

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

9. Pierre Trudeau did It in Canada

Petro-Canada is a retail and wholesale marketing brand subsidiary of Suncor Energy. Until 1991, it was a federal Crown corporation (a state-owned enterprise). In August 2009, Petro-Canada merged with Suncor Energy, with Suncor shareholders receiving approximately 60 percent ownership of the combined company and Petro-Canada shareholders receiving approximately 40 percent. The company retained the Suncor Energy name for the merged corporation and its upstream operations. It continues to use the Petro-Canada name nationwide.


Founding
In 1973, world oil prices quadrupled due to the Arab oil embargo following the Yom Kippur War. The province of Alberta had substantial oil reserves, whose extraction had long been controlled by American corporations. The government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the opposition New Democratic Party felt that these corporations geared most of their production to the American market, and as a result little of the benefit of rising oil prices went to Canadians.


Petro-Canada was founded as a Crown Corporation in 1975 by an act of Parliament. It started its operations on 1 January 1976. The company was given C$1.5 billion in start-up money and easy access to new sources of capital. It was set up in Calgary, despite the hostility of existing oil firms.[citation needed] Its first president was Maurice Strong. The Progressive Conservatives (PCs), then led by Albertan Joe Clark, were opponents of the company, and advocated breaking it up and selling it. However, they were unable to proceed with these plans during their brief time in power.
Petro-Canada Fuel Pump

With the establishment of Petro-Canada, the federal government transferred its 45% stake in Panarctic Oils Ltd. and its 12% stake in Syncrude to the newly established company. In 1976, Petro-Canada purchased Atlantic Richfield Canada, in 1978 Pacific Petroleums, and in 1981 the Canadian operations of Petrofina. Most of the original Petro-Canada refineries and service stations were acquired from BP Canada in 1983.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro-CanadaPetro-Canada

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Who knows? Really, this is a question with no rational answer...

The first problem is that humans are running either scenario and are perfectly likely to fuck ot up.

Private industry is known to be profit driven and excessively competitive, not always benefitting the customer.

Public entities are often subject to demands of the public with financial and other limitations that encourage corruption.

Beyond that is the continuing pressure to privatise public institutions when access to technology and funding is an issue.

NY power authority and the TVA anded up largely privatised, and Elizabeth, NJ sold its waterworks for a quick cash infusion. Similar examples can be found all over, as can comparisons to how well Detroit ran its waterworks.

Perhaps the best American solution is to have largely private utlities highly regulated. Of all the bad systems, that seems to work best (as long as you keep an eye on the regulators).

[Irish_Dem]

14. Because most politicians work for the wealthy corporations, not the people.

Look at all the other things we could have: healthcare, college tuition, parental leave,
secure retirements not tied to the Stockmarket, more vacation days.

When the people ask for help, the GOP tells us it is socialism and the people accept that.

Greedy corporations bribe corrupt politicians who flat out lie to the people.

[Progressive dog]

16. Monopolies generally charge what they want.

That's why Standard Oil was broken up.
In the present circumstances, where demand exceeds production, either the price goes up or rationing is required. Since the US is not the only nation using oil, rationing would require also banning exports,
Even that won't be enough. You can't sell what you don't have.

U.S. production was almost 11.6 million barrels a day in December, up from a low of 9.7 mbd in February of 2021, but below the nearly 13 million barrels recorded in the runup to the pandemic, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/just-how-much-oil-can-the-u-s-pump/
Then there is the problem of carbon emissions.
Please provide links to energy co. CEO's; earning $20-30 billion per year.

[Hugin]

30. Big oil is in the throws of not being in the cat seat...

As alternatives become viable and it's going to get ugly.

Until they get the alternatives cornered.

Unfortunately aside from sovereign nations they are the only entity with the liquid slush to do it.

[Scrivener7]

17. Citizens United makes that great idea impossible to implement for the forseeable future.

[sop]

18. FWIW, when I worked in Venezuela during the Chavez years, their nationalized gasoline, heavily

subsidized by the Venezuelan government, cost about 5 cents a gallon.

[Hoyt]

44. Sounds good, until one realizes a lot of Venezuleans today make $10 a month.

[Progressive dog]

47. The Venezuelan economy collapsed

under Chavez. Democracy died under Chavez.
Cheap gas is probably not a good thing even if we just want to slow global warming.

[Buckeyeblue]

19. The problem is that there isn't enough competition

And that's because we've let corporations get too big. There should be a ceiling on how many assets a single corporation should be able to control.

This would make room for more corporations. And this would drive down costs.

In the meantime we probably will have to figure out how to cover our own energy costs without depending on unfriendly sources.

[Buckeyeblue]

48. All big corporations really

Having a Chase, AT&T, GE, etc decreases competition, which increases prices. I would also say it leads to decreased wages because of needing less labor.

I'm not sure where the cut off should be. But someone smarter than me could develop a formula that figures out the sweet spot.

[azureblue]

20. as in any critical service supply / utility

Talk me down, because I don't think something so critical to our nations security should be in the hands of billionaires that don't give a fuck about our national security.

It should not be in the business of making money for investors. There is no reason to be paying to huge dividends and raising prices at the same time. Or paying the top level execs obscene money, either.

But it will take an act of God to get Congress to regulate the price of fuel, because all the Repubs are bribed by big oil.

[The Wizard]

21. The moneyed interests who own the government

have either overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments that have nationalized oil, among them : Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, USSR. Bribery doesn't cost, it pays. Follow the money.

[fescuerescue]

22. SO you would want a Trump appointee determining which states get fuel?

Because the lowly $120k bureaucrat that you pick, won't always be the one in charge.

Democrats won't always be in charge. We are only guaranteed to November 2022.

It wouldn't be an issue of cost per gallon. It would be an issue of who can buy it at any cost.

[Escurumbele]

31. It should not be a position where the president determines who will be selected, there have to be

regulations, there have to be laws protecting everyone to make sure no partisan issues disrupt anyone.

[SCantiGOP]

37. So the Prez selects the Sec of Energy

But some person making $120k a year is going to be isolated from politics and run the biggest industry in the country?
Sorry, this whole discussion is divorced from reality.

[Escurumbele]

49. As I pointed out before, it worked in a 3rd World country like Venezuela, it should work here

if it is done right. Of course it worked until Hugo Chavez destroyed it, but it worked for many years.

That is why regulations exist as well, it would also help us to ease into renewable technology by allowing companies to develop electric cars and other technologies that would eventually make oil a thing of the past. This is not divorced from reality, imagine if the founding fathers had said that when they wrote the constitution, or if Edison had said the same when developing the light bulb, what should be divorced from reality and life is the negativity to which many people live, reason why many things are never done right in government.

[fescuerescue]

64. $120k isn't exactly going to inspire the best

Most 1st line IT jobs pay more.

And we talking about handing over the entire industry to someone paid slightly above entry level?

[Escurumbele]

67. I didn't come up with that salary, it came from the original post which I did not write, but

OK, give them a bigger salary, make it attractive, but make sure you vet them very well. Accept no one who has had a criminal record, like we do with our politicians, make sure these people have lived a good honest life, there are plenty like that, and yes, give them a good salary...Does $500,000.00/year sound attractive? With a $50,000.00 end of year bonus?...plenty of gifts for the wife and the kids...

People would have to plan well how to run a nationalized oil industry. As I have said many times, it has been done in other countries successfully, no reason why it cannot be done in the USA.

[fescuerescue]

72. I guess my next question is. Who selects this person?

An election?

Or selected by politicians?

I see trouble either way.

This position potentially has more power than the President.

[fescuerescue]

63. Like the Postal administrator eh?

Hows that working out?

[Escurumbele]

68. I said "not selected by the president"...don't people read posts all the way?

I also said, non-partisan.

[fescuerescue]

71. The postal administrator ISN'T selected by the President

That's my point.

Yet Trump still got his man in there and Biden is powerless to remove him.

[MineralMan]

23. First, which oil company CEO makes $20-30 BILLION per year?

Second, when governments control production of essential things like oil, they also control who gets the fuel. What do you suppose Trump would have done with such power?

[Escurumbele]

35. I am sure the $20, $30 billion was an exaggeration, but that is not the issue, they do make millions

Read my post above, this should not be a position that is designated by the president, anyone occupying the position must be non-partisan. The process and rules would have to be well thought.

Now, for historical reference.

This happened in Venezuela:

When Rafael Caldera was on his first term as president of Venezuela, he crafted the plan to nationalize, not only the oil industry, but coal, steel, etc. He was not able to pass the laws, but Carlos Andres Perez (who was a horrible crooked president) did, and those industries were run very well until Chavez destroyed them. There were never issues about punishing states with governors who did not agree with the president, it was run very professionally and it worked like a charm.

I don't see why it could not be done in the USA.

Of course that our ideal solution is to cut the dependency in oil, I am sure we all agree with that, but in the mean time I like the idea of nationalizing oil in the USA.

[MineralMan]

40. Ridiculous exaggerations turn arguments into ridiculous arguments.

The United States is not Venezuela. Government does not own businesses here. It will never own businesses here. That isn't how we do things in this country. It never has been, and changing to a system where it does is not likely in any way.

Next suggestion...

[Escurumbele]

54. I did not compare USA with Venezuela, but if Venezuela was able to nationalize oil and other

natural resources industries with success I believe the USA can also do so.

"That isn't how we do things in this country." Really??? So, there is no room for change, I see...we do things this way, and that is the end of it...Amazing progressive thinking. With that way of thinking it would be a futile exercise to want to eliminate the "Electoral College" because that is the way we do things, or to change the presidential pardon to avoid pardoning of crooks like Manafort, Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, etc. because that is the way we do things...I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

I believe in change, I believe that we must progress and do things better, we all know there are too many things wrong in our government and laws. For example, people like trump should be prevented from running for office, any office, because he was found guilty of fraud due to his trump university and trump foundation, but why bother changing the laws to prevent people like that from running for office because that is the way we do things...wow!!!

By the way, you seemed to have missed the point I made that the success of the nationalization of oil that happened in Venezuela was successful UNTIL Hugo Chavez came to power, and UNTIL THEN the government DID NOT own private industries, only what belonged to all the Venezuelan people, such as oil, mining of gold, precious stones, steel, etc. things that come from the earth and thus belong to the nation, not to private enterprises. There is a difference, it may be worthwhile for you to read a little about Venezuela's history, they used to call it "the Switzerland of South America" because of how well it run, UNTIL Hugo Chavez too power.

Next argument...

[EX500rider]

60. "Venezuela was able to nationalize oil and other natural resources industries with success"

Venezuela is hardly a success in anybody's book these days and their nationalize and seize industries is a big part of that reason why.

[Escurumbele]

66. Geez...you have to READ what I wrote, I said "A SUCCESS UNTIL HUGO CHAVEZ DESTROYED EVERYTHING"

I know Venezuela is not a success today, but it was BEFORE CHAVEZ. Please read just a little bit of that country's history, I lived there, I have friends there, it was paradise, not anymore because the communist/totalitarian regime of Hugo Chavez and now Nicolas Maduro have destroyed everything with the help of Cuba, Russia, China, Iran, and as many creepy dictators around the world they have teamed up with.

I never said Venezuela was a success today, not sure where you got that from, if you read my post all the way you will find that I did not say that, I was referring to that country's history, which UNTIL CHAVEZ, was splendid...And I should correct myself on something, CHAVEZ was the product of corrupt Democracies, of corrupt politicians, specifically Carlos Andres Perez, but even with CAP the country was great to live in, and things worked, like the Nationalized Oil Industry.

Venezuela was so great BEFORE CHAVEZ, that you could find immigrants from everywhere moving there, lots of USA citizens, lots of Europeans, Chinese, you name it, from all over the World.

[fescuerescue]

73. So it didn't end well

[forthemiddle]

74. So all it would take is one bad leader

To completely bankrupt a Country?
Good thing the United States has never elected a bad leader isn’t it?

[Cherokee100]

24. U nailed it

If oil is so important to our national security, then it should be nationalized. Big oil sees our military, as their own personal security force, to protect their oil. That way they can make more money, for bigger yachts, their own islands, private jets and bigger mansions.

[SCantiGOP]

39. Food is more important than energy

Will you nationalize that also? Even the Soviet Union realized that didn’t work.

[Escurumbele]

55. No, you regulate food to make sure it is right for people to eat. You are comparing apples with

oranges.

Why it makes sense to nationalize oil, for one it would generate a lot of money to the country that can be used for health, education, to fight climate change, etc. It would allow the government to work easier, without resistance, towards implementing technologies that would eventually free us from oil, I don't think 100% but 80%. It would remove the corruption from the oil industry while also removing any dependency from countries like Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. that we have today because of oil.

[cstanleytech]

25. Not sure if it would be a good thing or a bad thing but what I do believe is that we should not be

exporting any of our fossil fuels as we might need them one day for ourselves.

[lagomorph777]

27. A fully functioning government would have made gasoline obsolete by now.

We would have incentivized EV development and green energy to the point where very few people would ever go to a gas station.

[EX500rider]

61. So no country in the world has a "fully functioning govt"?

Because gas is not obsolete anywhere yet.

[Escurumbele]

28. That is a fantastic question. People don't seem to understand that we pay for those huge salaries

CEOs of oil companies get.

I was once discussing with a republican about a bonus the Exxon CEO received many years ago, a whooping $400 million bonus. I told him the guy did not deserve it, he was not a founder of Exxon, he did not do anything to help the oil industry get the profits they did that year, OPEC did all the work. So he told me that "I don't care what Exxon does with its money", so I said "don't you understand that for them to give that kind of bonuses they need to raise the price of gas that you and I have to pay at the gas station?, where do you think they get the money from, magic?"

So, your suggestion is a very good one.

[getagrip_already]

29. from a purely production standpoint....

It is ridiculously cheap. Transportation probably equals production cost. But what people get wrong is trying to relate the cost of crude on the spot market to production costs.

Very little of the oil we use is bought off the spot market. It is all tied up in long term contracts at the well head. The spot price doesn't really affect the materials cost in the product we see.

Likewise, transportation and the refineries are owned by the same conglomerates that control the well heads.

The price we pay at the pump is linked to the spot oil price, but it isn't influenced greatly by it.

All you need to look at is the sudden rise in prices. They are raising the price on fuel that has already been produced and paid for. There is no direct relationship to how much it cost to produce. Even low inventories and high turnover don't account for price increase speed.

But the talking heads will say it works both ways! It falls as fast as it rises! BS. It doesn't. It can take a year to drop to a price that preceded some scare, long enough for any product in the system to get through.

[jaxexpat]

32. Clearly it should.

The proposition of nationalization has been the single international political element since JD Rockefeller's reign. But sorry, the energy giants spend a lot of their resources ensuring we're distracted so as to not notice the perfect reasonability of it. Almost every "bad guy" we are encouraged to mistrust, isolate and hate on the international stage has nationalized their oil business. Nixon was dethroned when he tried to speak reasonably about energy dependence. Carter was turned into a pariah for looking a bit too closely at the details of international energy commerce. Reagan's, Bush's, Bush's and Trump's installation was blessed, vis-a-vis their opponents, by the fossil fuel industry and their status quo. Gore was denied his presidency by those same creatures.

One thing is certain, if the US were to nationalize the fossil fuel industry, electric automobiles would be dominant on the streets and sustainable energy production would power them. But is that good for General Bullmoose?

[Lonestarblue]

33. A big part of the problem is predatory capitalism.

US CEOs and top managers run organizations based on their bonuses and pay. Their loyalties are to themselves. As an example, the oil companies instantly raised prices on gasoline now even though their prices will not rise until sometime in the future. We do not have a shortage of gasoline—we have freed driving our pricing.

Corporations have been reaping enormous profits over the past couple of years, and they were raising prices to consumers even as their own profits were increasing dramatically, thus contributing to inflation simply because they could get away with it. CEOs use much of that profit to buyback company stock, which increases bonuses. Stock buybacks used to be prohibited. They need to be again because enhancing CEO bonuses should not be the driving factor in corporate decisions. Other corporate financial regulations are also needed, including special taxes on corporations, such as denying them write offs for those exorbitant bonuses.

We need to go back to the laws that were on the books before Reagan and the Republicans who followed him began dismantling our regulatory and tax laws and revise and reinstate those that protect the public.

[randr]

34. If the oil companies actually developed the leases they currently have

we would not be in this position. They already control the flow of oil by not developing the resources they already have.

[Farmer-Rick]

38. Because capitalism

If you want a capitalist economy, you have outrageous prices and consolidation of wealth. Those born with capital get to earn tons more capital. Those born without capital get to work and die poor or maybe middle class. The filthy rich always spin lies of how they are self made. But the US is no longer a meritocracy if it ever was.

Hard work and talent today will very likely keep you in the lower to middle class in America. If you are filthy rich, you were very likely born into wealth and privilege that most people never experience in their whole lives.

"Most of the Forbes 400, like Mitt, have benefited from a level of privilege unknown to the vast majority of Americans." https://ips-dc.org/the_self-made_hallucination_of_americas_rich/

Capitalism is just a step above feudalism and slavery. What you are describing is a form of socialism. But the US has always had some amount of socialism since the founding of this country.

Right now we have the least amount of socialism in the history of this country. Even in the 1790s town governments ran road works and fire departments. And of course mail has always been the responsibility of the Federal government.

By the way the average gas and oil privledged class CEO earns $6.5 million a year.

Get rid of capitalism by introducing more democracy in the workplace. Do you really think some privileged rich guys calling themselves CEOs and chairman can make better decisions for a company than the people who work there?

[EX500rider]

52. Yeah fire department's roads and police are not socialism

And never have been socialism is the government owning the means of production.. and it has never turned out well see Soviet Union North Korea Cuba etc

[Farmer-Rick]

56. They are socialism

No economic system is 100 percent of anything. Capitalism has some socialism. Communism has some socialism. Slavery has some capitalism. Feudalism has some capitalism.

Socialism is the worker, not necessarily the government, owning the means of production. It means a handful of capitalists do not own it. While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element.

Our roads and fire departments are owned by our government officials we vote in. Our government pays for these things with out taxes that we pay in. Since we all contribute taxes, we all own our roads and fire departments as long as they are not turned over to a for profit entity. All water companies, electric distribution plants, schools and sewage processing systems use to all be owned by us through our elected officials. But with the privitzation scams Republicans encouraged, we lost a lot of control to greedy corporations.

In the Soviet Union their goal was communism. But in their effort to get there, they used some socialism. The government took and owned the means of production not the workers. It was a stop gap measure that never moved on. They thought that if the government had the means of production and they became abusive, the workers would vote them out. Unfortunately along the way they acquired a dictatorship that ended any real form of socialism.

There are many types of socialism and not everyone agrees on the same explanation. But I believe that social ownership best describes most of them.

[EX500rider]

57. Yeah you can't make up your own definitions and have them stick

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[Farmer-Rick]

58. Yeah, you really don't know what socialism is.

If this is My Made Up definition, then why is wiki using it?????

I should sue.

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownershipof the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems. Social ownership can be public, collective, or cooperative. While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

And even your sparse definition has "owned by the community" in it.

Geez, you should take a look at this to find out the Truth. You have little understanding of your subject. https://www.rdwolff.com/

[EX500rider]

59. Means of production is not roads or police or fire depts.

All types of governments have those.

[Farmer-Rick]

62. You need to do some research

You are just repeating the same failed claim with no evidence. Take a look at the Richard Wolff site. It could teach you a few thing.

[EX500rider]

65. Right, no evidence other then the dictionary definition you mean.

[Farmer-Rick]

70. A definition inappropriately applied

Is not evidence of anything.

[Snackshack]

41. Energy like Healthcare

…and like food, housing, clothing and education should all be either heavily regulated like electricity is or nationalized.

These 6 issue are basic needs that we all have and this country is certainly wealthy enough that it could easily do this. These commodities should not be subject to the whims of just a small handful of people. The price gouging of Insulin is a very good example of why.

[usonian]

42. I'd use a lot less petrochemicals, nearly zero.

if electricity weren't so damn expensive (CA) and the nearest car charger weren't 17 miles away.

Anyone can produce electricity. If solar were subsidized the same way petro is ( to the tune of *you tell me* ) things might already be better.

(Billionaire) Citizens United. Our oligarchy.

[grantcart]

43. Besides the entire illegality of stealing assets from citizens the basis

of your question is based on two fallacies,

1) Oil executives don't make $ 30 billion a year

2) While the price of your local hamburger may be based on cost plus pricing, commodities are based on supply and demand and not cost of production or executive salaries. The cost of a $ 40 gallon of oil and a $ 90 gallon of oil are exactly the same.

Beyond that oil market prices are highly fungible meaning that the actions in any one market have little effect on the world market because distribution is so liquid that the price will float to a consistent world price.

For that reason the US banning Russian oil. Will not have a significant effect on price but the domestic perception will be that it was a cause and effect action.

[Hoyt]

45. Doubt it would be a lot cheaper, if any. Plus, who'd want someone like trump presiding over fuel.

[thatdemguy]

46. Less than 10% cheaper than now.

I just looked it up, Exxon made about 10% profit according to something I just found. Figure the gas stations themselves have to make a small profit. I worked in a gas station in high school, we made about 1-2 cents per gallon on $.89 gas. So if we use 1.99 pump price, if the gas station makes 3-5 cents a gallon, exxon makes 19 cents.

You also need to realize per the article I read that 10% was not a normal year, and they made most of it from nat gas, not gasoline. I read years ago exxon made about 3-5% profit on gas, which if is accurate, then at 4 bucks a gallon they make 20 cents.

[maxrandb]

50. I guess I am just looking for a way to try to not be held hostage to tyrants and madmen

I also think that I am pining for a time when Americans had a sense of collective sacrifice.

Could you imagine ration cards in today's Murika?

[thatdemguy]

51. America as a whole would burn

If we tried to go back to the rationing of WW2. Americans today are too spoiled.

Fun fact, I once spoke an old man who was a child during WW2 in the middle of the country on a farm. All he new is boys from 17-25 left and sometimes did not return. He never knew there was a depression before the war. They always had plenty of food, but never enough of anything else, both before, during and after the depression. He came to baltimore when he was 25 and was amazed what life in the city was like. He bought he first pair of new shoes when he arrived in baltimore.

[hunter]

53. If fossil fuel companies are nationalized it's a lot harder to kill them. And they do need to die.

I don't want a government dependent on those revenue streams.

I'd rather have consumers reject high prices and reduce their fossil fuel use across a broad spectrum of industry.

Maybe we can rebuild our cities so that most people living in them don't need to own automobiles. Maybe we can electrify our transportation systems.

Etc..

[Cicada]

69. Hopefully a very high price, to deter use

We don’t need more co2. It will kill more people than Russia will.