because that wouldn't accomplish much, and completely misses the mark on what direction we actually need to be moving in.

we need to put oil behind us, not strap it onto our backs and try to trudge forward with it.

Because we are not a net oil exporter? Just a random guess.

Because that industry's actually turning a profit, and therefore the oligarchs want to maintain the status quo?

Yeah, we want to become MORE like Hugo Chavez? I don't think so.

Nationalizing an industry isn't something you can do lightly. It's got to be done because it's necessary to the ease of commerce, because the Tragedy of the Commons is plainly evident, and because it's not likely to satisfactorily get done another way. Roads, military, and police fit it perfectly. Healthcare does to some degree. Oil only fits one of those requirements.

two answers

1.Mexico
2.Venezuela

Mexico did this at the turn of the last century and as we can see it didn't exactly work out too well for them... granted there were other factors at play but scaring off foreign capitol is no way to get through life...

And we have Venezuela which may be flush with cash but is having a hell of a time getting basic foods such as eggs, flour, beef, milk and so forth onto the tables of it's citizens. They are already considering cutting back on spending for certain programs and I am pretty much sure that Chavez's nationalization spree is only going to come back and bite him in the arse within a few years.

Because then you'd have ME as a federal employee, browsing porn all day and leaving wiseass comments on fark.

I thought we didn't like socialism.

HansensDisease:

Lots of farkers love socialism. It's reality that hates socialism's klepto ass.

Capitalist1: Lots of farkers love socialism. It's reality that hates socialism's klepto ass.

All your robber-baron lords and masters are cackling at you even now as they plot new ways to make you work harder for less money!

/did I do that right?

Capitalist1: HansensDisease:

Lots of farkers love socialism. It's reality that hates socialism's klepto ass.

What does socialism steal?

sloppy shoes: What does socialism steal?

Incentive for being exceptional, and incentive not to underperform.

/Devil's advocate

sloppy shoes: What does socialism steal?

The sweat and tears of the hardworking CEOs as they struggle to pay a smaller share of the taxes needed to run a country that they benefit the most from?

Occam's Chainsaw: sloppy shoes: What does socialism steal?

Incentive for being exceptional, and incentive not to underperform.

/Devil's advocate

Only if there is no intrinsic value to the society.

The problem I have when people say that is they don't really realize the implications of the statement. If it were true, it would imply that all collectivism is either inefficient or destructive. Now, despite the evidence to the contrary, it would also imply that absolute anarchy would provide the most efficient results because the because any movement towards structure or order would eliminate results because there would no longer be any incentive.

It would also invalidate virtually all religions, governments, and other structures as being inefficient barriers to greater good. Clearly, nothing would get done because any incentive towards cooperation is null and the only incentive is to exceptional on the individual level. Lastly, it would imply that there is an inherent structural difference between the exceptional and non-exceptional. It is unclear what the breaking point of this distinction would manifest itself in, but the only solution for the non-exceptional would be elimination or, as stated in the primary assumption, optimization would be decimated. As optimization is of primary concern and the condolences of this loss are unimaginable the only suitable option for the inefficient is extermination.

/Hitler's advocate ;-)

you are all fired, especially trollmitter

sloppy shoes: What does socialism steal?

taxpayer money....that then goes to CEO bonuses that they HAD to have or the US economy would collapse.

log_jammin: sloppy shoes: What does socialism steal?

taxpayer money....that then goes to CEO bonuses that they HAD to have or the US economy would collapse.

That's kleptocratic corporatism with a sprinkling of fascism.

Arguably, oil is nationalized in all but name. The national policy of the US is to protect the flow of oil and the economic benefits that results. A market will be permitted in this environment *provided that* the national interest is not threatened.

Occam's Chainsaw: That's kleptocratic corporatism with a sprinkling of fascism.

are we gonna split hairs here? am I wrong?

sloppy shoes: It is unclear what the breaking point of this distinction would manifest itself in, but the only solution for the non-exceptional would be elimination or, as stated in the primary assumption, optimization would be decimated. As optimization is of primary concern and the condolences of this loss are unimaginable the only suitable option for the inefficient is extermination.

/Hitler's advocate ;-)

Actually it would be a waste of time and resources to go through the laborious process of extermination, much better to let them fail at barter and starve.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: sloppy shoes: It is unclear what the breaking point of this distinction would manifest itself in, but the only solution for the non-exceptional would be elimination or, as stated in the primary assumption, optimization would be decimated. As optimization is of primary concern and the condolences of this loss are unimaginable the only suitable option for the inefficient is extermination.

/Hitler's advocate ;-)

Actually it would be a waste of time and resources to go through the laborious process of extermination, much better to let them fail at barter and starve.

Nonsense. The reason we lock up blacks and mexicans is the blight they produce upon our urban areas. Same with all the laws making it illegal to be homeless. Not only do they not produce, but they darken all of the pristine, clean areas. You do not let dirt grow and mold- you sweep it up and dispose of it.

/I hope everyone understands I am kidding.

PartTimeBuddha: Arguably, oil is nationalized in all but name. The national policy of the US is to protect the flow of oil and the economic benefits that results. A market will be permitted in this environment *provided that* the national interest is not threatened.

I disagree. Even when the national interest is threatened, a market is permitted.

log_jammin: are we gonna split hairs here? am I wrong?

Kinda, as branding corporate handouts "socialist" is misleading. It's far from pure socialism, where the corporation would be absorbed by the state and the profits distributed to the people, and not just the losses. So, kleptocratic corporatism, and you could make a strong argument for fascism.

Occam's Chainsaw: log_jammin: are we gonna split hairs here? am I wrong?

Kinda, as branding corporate handouts "socialist" is misleading. It's far from pure socialism, where the corporation would be absorbed by the state and the profits distributed to the people, and not just the losses. So, kleptocratic corporatism, and you could make a strong argument for fascism.

I would argue its like communism: in name only do the workers own the resources and production. In reality, it is the kleptocracy and party that does.

Further, true socialism, would be responsible to the people. True socialism would have handed the deal of the bailout to Obama to deal with, not Paulson (who I know believe is most likely corrupt- either directly or through false ideology) and Bush.

It's not that we can't give loans to these corporations- but the refusal to attach strings, demand certain things, or require other controls is not only baffling, it's a complete mockery of reality. The problem is too many people in power fear the control of government sooooo much that they are afraid to govern. Not all governments are Hitler or Stalin. Inept decisions by our leaders are just as bad.

Sadly, it has taken us 30+ years to realize what has been going on.

scruffy1: two answers

1.Mexico
2.Venezuela


3. Norway

Occam's Chainsaw: Kinda, as branding corporate handouts "socialist" is misleading. It's far from pure socialism, where the corporation would be absorbed by the state and the profits distributed to the people, and not just the losses.

Oh I know. But the Soup of the Day from the right lately is how paying for anything with taxes = socialism, I thought i'd jump on the bandwagon.

Now is the time for the socialists to pay back the unions and all other special interests for their financial support of Chairman Obama. All with your dime!

Question is???? When is Hugo and Chairman Obama going to meet to discuss the how of naturalization? of Oil?

scruffy1: And we have Venezuela which may be flush with cash but is having a hell of a time getting basic foods such as eggs, flour, beef, milk and so forth onto the tables of it's citizens...

If you look into the current conditions in Venezuela, you can quickly see that that's a problem of real estate and environment, not finances or oil management.

winterwhile: Now is the time for the socialists to pay back the unions and all other special interests for their financial support of Chairman Obama. All with your dime!

Question is???? When is Hugo and Chairman Obama going to meet to discuss the how of naturalization? of Oil?

Are you still talking? I don't know if anyone is listening. I just accidentally read your comment, and wasn't sure you knew how dumb it makes you sound.

Better idea: Make the Oil industry bail out the Auto industry.

We should go back to capitalism. If your business is "too big to fail", congratulations, you win, and which piece would you like to oversee?

Apparently, someone has nationalized complete sentences and taken away Submitter's incentive to use them.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

NO!

/ NO
// no
// bad dog

Hows that working out for the Postal Service?

Why not nationalize oil? If the Treasury Department can bail out banks with $700 billion, to keep credit available, nationalize oil

Because Iran would orchestrate a coup d'etat against our democratic government and bring back the King of England, who will make sure international oil interests are fulfilled?

We did it to them, it's only fair.

As a CEO who struggles daily to pay a smaller share of the taxes needed to run a country that I benefit the most from, I am sure getting a kick out of some of these comments. What all you anti-corporation morons can't ever seem to understand is when they raise taxes on us, we just past the cost unto the suckers... um, I mean consumers.

trueaustinite: Apparently, someone has nationalized complete sentences and taken away Submitter's incentive to use them.

The implied "then" in an if/then sentence is grammatically acceptable.

Socialism is not.

Komplex: scruffy1: two answers

1.Mexico
2.Venezuela
3. Norway

Is this a joke?

CIA Factbook per capita GDP (PPP) World Rankings

1 $ 87,600 Qatar
2 $ 79,400 Luxembourg
3 $ 69,900 Bermuda
4 $ 57,000 Jersey
5 $ 55,900 Kuwait
6 $ 53,300 Norway
7 $ 51,000 Brunei
8 $ 49,900 Singapore
9 $ 46,600 Ireland
10 $ 45,800 United States

83 $ 12,800 Venezuela
86 $ 12,400 Mexico

Considering how many regimes that we've helped topple to keep that from happening, do you really think that we'd do it ourselves?

link is farked, can't read it..

but why not nationalize oil? It's a commodity that's tied into our foreign policy, environmental concerns, and is obviously so huge a money-maker, that even the government can't f*** it up! (I mean, the demand is not going anywhere)

Because the government only gets involved with failing business. When have reliable & practical electric cars and the oil companies are hurting, they probably will. Why didn't the government bail out typewriter companies in the 80's? If automakers and bankers can't make a profit, they should file bankruptcy.

It would put our current president, Dick Cheney, out of business.

/but we could still start wars to keep his defense business going strong!

no money in typewriters

I don't think we should do it to save/bailout the oil industry when it's failing. I think we should do it to benefit the country, pay for health care, fund alternative energies, etc.

OR we can just continue to leave it up to people whose only interest is there bottom line and bonuses, when what they do so obviously has repercussions to all of us - that should work out well.

Forget the oil industry let em die, let the car industry die , if they cant learn to make stuff that doesnt run on oil they have no business being in business. If banks cant figure out how to not lose their shirts let them go out of business. America and the world would drop into a giant depression but eventually we would come out of it.

The US federal gov't wants to Nationalize the oil. Iran's oil, Iraq's oil...

notoneword: link is farked, can't read it..

but why not nationalize oil? It's a commodity that's tied into our foreign policy, environmental concerns, and is obviously so huge a money-maker, that even the government can't f*** it up! (I mean, the demand is not going anywhere)

I was going to read the rest of the thread before popping off. You do point out some very valid points towards nationalizing the industry, it's just that the compelling reasons not to are much larger and more important.

The biggest downfall of this action would be the blow it would represent to the very foundation of this country. Sure, it wouldn't break us, nor would it turn us into 1980 U.S.S.R., but it would represent the biggest push away from "Individual" liberty ever in our history. This country was founded on the premise of "Individual Liberty" which also means "Individual Responsibility". Not Community Rights and Community Responsibility, which is what nationalizing the oil industry would represent. Lots of people have stock in those companies through 401K's and other assorted options, so it's not like one person owns the whole shebang; Profits are shared by many. Do you really want that many Americans to essentially give up that much of their property (in my odd mind owning a piece of a company is much like owning a piece of property) to the Government?

The second part is Cigarette Taxes. Let's be honest, the Government loves to tax products as a way of controlling it's citizens behavior. The best part is, it starts off small and slowly grows over time, tiny increments so it doesn't truly hurt; people can adjust if they truly need to. Ahh yes, the good old days when a pack of smokes was just a buck twenty five.

Now Imagine the government in complete control of the oil supply and it's prices. Social Security no longer becomes a problem, and screw anyone who doesn't think Global Warming is right around the corner, after all, you don't really *need* to drive all that far. You see where I'm going with this right? I mean they already make more in taxes off of a gallon of gas than the oil companies.

Anyway, to avoid a *massive* wall o text, those are my two biggest compelling reasons.

/Like it or not, Obama's election *did* prove that the current mixture we have (or at least had) of Socialism\capitalism is fair in the sense that if you work hard, you can accomplish anything, despite where you start from.

Because it will make everyone's head in Texas explode. We should do it though.

points taken

KenWhat: Not claiming to be an economic theorist or anything, (and still not having RTFA) but is there another way to nationalize Oil (it's profits and its infrastructure, etc.) other than its production? Which, as you mention, doesnt occur w/in the US. Please, drop some knowledge on us.. or just call us stupid again, i'm fine either way...

brukmann: Komplex: scruffy1: two answers

1.Mexico
2.Venezuela
3. Norway

Is this a joke?

CIA Factbook per capita GDP (PPP) World Rankings

1 $ 87,600 Qatar
2 $ 79,400 Luxembourg
3 $ 69,900 Bermuda
4 $ 57,000 Jersey
5 $ 55,900 Kuwait
6 $ 53,300 Norway
7 $ 51,000 Brunei
8 $ 49,900 Singapore
9 $ 46,600 Ireland
10 $ 45,800 United States

83 $ 12,800 Venezuela
86 $ 12,400 Mexico

No, go down to the economy section for Norway in the CIA world factbook.
Link (new window)

Kenwhat
The stupid in strong in this thread. The United States is a net importer of oil. You cannot nationalize production that occurs largely outside your nation you dimwits.

This. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to just raise the amount that the American People charge the oil companies for their leases?