Nationalization Of The Oil Industry Will Save The World.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Germanicus

 

I'd choose austerity over any "ism" because even with austerity, you don't cede your individual identity.

I'm a little confused here.
I agree that living within ones means is the way to be truly free and independent, and if this basic fact was more widely known, the world would be in a much better place right now.
But living within ones means and nationalism are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.
Are you suggesting you lose your individual indentity through nationalism?

Originally posted by beezzer
As said previously, nationalizing presumes that government would do a better job and be less corupt.

Yes and this is not inevitably true but absolutely possible.

Nationalizing the oil didn't work out so good for Gaddafi, did it? Look where that got him and the country of Libya.

Remember the old adage 'privatize profit, socialize debt. It will never happen whilst oil companies are making so much profit.

Unfortunately many Americans are just going to have to get used to a lower standard of living, more in line with the rest of the world.

That is an aim of globalisation, us all paying the same prices, for the same goods.

Private companies run on profit. It is the antithesis of private business to be inefficient.

The is one of the problems if relying on private companies to provide consumer services and certainly, 'infrastructure' services. The concept of profit.

We are all familiar with the cycle of business development and how it affects consumers, I am sure. You start off small, provide great delivery and customer sign-up, then somebody somewhere says, "look how big we are, we need to make more profit." So, what do they do? They make cuts. Cuts that directly affect the service delivery.

In a free market economy we're supposed to have a choice, right? Thing is, they're all at it. Go with this company, go with that company, doesn't matter, the service delivery will inevitably decline over time as profit takes precedence over consumer satisfaction. Don't believe me? Then why are so many people p*ssed off with their service providers and complain about customer service. It will go in cycles of course and not every company is as bad as the next one, but the basic truth is there.

So, we know that profit for profit's sake is bad for consumers. However, that is the whole point of business isn't it? This is where it gets screwy. As was quoted, it is the antithesis of private business to be inefficient. You'd think so, but, it is the truth of reality because companies are run by 'people' and 'people' think of profit before efficiency and only think of efficiency in terms of reducing overheads which usually negatively affects consumer services.

The main reason nationalised industries have failed in the UK is employee protectionism, It didn't matter if you were crap at your job, the unions would protect you and make sure that you had a job for life.

There is nothing wrong with running a nationalised industry along the lines of a private company, where the main distinction is that profit is *only* for investment in the service provision itself. Yes, nationalised industries have been run abysmally, but, they are no better as private companies with the upshot that any profit that is made is taken *away* from the service and given to individuals, often at the expense of the company itself.

During the crash in 2008/2009, I knew of a company whose share value had dropped from $50 to just over $1, yet, the board insisted that the dividend be maintained and the company bled dry just to maintain shareholder confidence. Hello? What? Really? This kind of b*ll*x is what is ruinous to industry.

Infrastructure services should be nationalised but run with a rod of iron. They should constantly be monitored for performance and service delivery.

Just think of how they want to privatise the roads. Private companies owning roads, maintaining them and charging *us* to use them. Didn'e we already pay for them? Don't we pay road tax? Yes, of course, but the road tax doesn't fund the road infrastructure, it goes into a pot to pay for other quangos and international development funds.

I honestly believe that nationalisation is a lesser evil for infrastructure services, because those services should be consistent between regions and not subject to fluctuation in market whims or to the takeover intentions of foreign money-men. It is much harder to get it back than to sell it off, besides which, it was never the government's property to sell off in the first place. *WE* owned it!

Originally posted by RawkMan
Infrastructure services should be nationalised but run with a rod of iron. They should constantly be monitored for performance and service delivery. [...]
I honestly believe that nationalisation is a lesser evil for infrastructure services, because those services should be consistent between regions and not subject to fluctuation in market whims or to the takeover intentions of foreign money-men.

Exactly. The crucial lifelines of our nations / economies are way to important to be subject to privatized profits and risks.
All under the assumption that the national institutions administering those resorts are working efficient of course.

Nobdy likes goldman sachs. Nobody likes austerity, so using your logic why not nationalize goldman sachs. At least the oil companies are producing something. What s goldman sachs producing other than debt.

I have to wonder about this. Remember how Globalization was to help the world's economy? And how now everyone economy is in the toilet? Globalization distoryed the world's economy fo0r everyone. Nationalization Of The Oil Industry could do the very same thing.

reply to post by fixer1967


Globalisation is such BS. The delivery of products and services within this model inherently rely on stark disparity between producers and consumers. There is a reason why sweatshops are in use... they are profitable. Companies 'tend' to only develop ethics when they are called out on the subject. The profit margin usually wins out.

It skews so many aspects of society, it sends wages (minimal, mind you!) abroad rather than circulating them within the economy, it puts the economic drivers of society into the hands of corporations rather than individuals. It makes us all slaves to the system.

You can't reverse it because all the 'skills' have been transferred abroad. Extrapolate this picture to an extreme level and you end up with a nation of consumers where *everything* is produced abroad. Doesn't work does it? As soon as there is a glitch in the system the whole kit and caboodle comes crashing down.

Like the man on the street doesn't already know this... let it is allowed to happen because the money-men get their share without having to concern themselves with consequences.

The bottom line should not just be financial. It has to be measured in terms of the individual, the community, society, the nation. I am sure we have all worked places where this or that service was sent out to a private company to save money... on paper. In reality, the service goes down in quality and costs actually go up because of remedial efforts to correct for the poor service. We've all seen it, yet these are lauded as successes by the money-men, too stupid to see beyond the end of their nose and their grubby little palms.

The only good thing is that globalisation inevitably collapses. It cannot keep going the same as infinite expansion and growth is not possible. When the disparity between producers and consumers is reduced enough, it no longer becomes viable. The down side is that we will have forgotten how to wipe our own *rse - metaphorically speaking of course ;-)

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I really have two thoughts on this. At least where the United States is concerned. First, however bad the Oil companies are, we're actually suggesting Government has ever shown themselves to be better at running much of anything? I'm not sure what that leaves as the solution...but Government isn't it from where I sit in America.

Second though, the profits are obscene and I must agree. I owned my own truck on 9/11 and was making nice money as an Owner Operator. Diesel was under $1.00 a gallon fairly commonly when I got loads down through Georgia. Life was good.... Then greed happened...obscene, vile and over the top greed. How will Government use those billions to help us when they waste away the billions they have now and pretty much laugh at us when we're pissed about it?

Oh well.. I'm not a fan of nationalizing anything beyond the few things the Constitution says. Not simply because it says so, but they happened to high the high points on the first try. Oil was sure not a part of Government jurisdiction to run a nation.

Countries that own there oil companies have not seen prices rise like they have in the USA. You seem to complain that the private companies have screwed you, yet you don't see the reason for any change. How can we ever get ahead in this country if everyone keeps going to battle against themselves? We need to nationalize all infrastructure and production that is vital to our countries well being.

Big no. Nationalising major corporations, especially oil industries is a very slippery slope. The Government have enough power as it is, thank you. And putting the one "magic" resource that makes absolutely everything we enjoy in the world possible solely into the hands of the UK and US governments is not a notion that comforts me.

reply to post by sajuek



The UK is shafted by government when it comes to fuel whether it is in private hands or not...

We pay around £1.40 per litre... That equates to around $10.26 dollars a gallon... Still think you're hard done by?

Also, we pay around 60% of that price as tax... Fuel duty and 'VAT'. Only around 35% is product costs and only 5% is retailer profit.

Read that again... 60%

Imagine pay those $10 dollars per gallon and knowing that the government was raking in $6.00 each time.

Nice tax eh?

reply to post by RawkMan


You are 100% right. Nationalization Of The Oil Industry could do the very same thing. End up doing harm than good.

Isn't the government owned by the people in theory?

i think when people push for nationalization, that it comes within the framework of also having a government that operates as it is suppose to. I know some of you will say we will never get rid of corruption, etc. I think the right system of checks and balances, meshed with our current technology could eliminate almost all fraud and corruption in the system.

So rework the question. If our governments were actually serving for the benefit of the people and corruption and ineptness eliminated, would it not be logical to nationalize resources vital to the operation of the economy? The only reason not to, would be to preserve profits for their owners, profits that are made off of resources that should be owned by all of us.
.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
Nobdy likes goldman sachs. Nobody likes austerity, so using your logic why not nationalize goldman sachs. At least the oil companies are producing something. What s goldman sachs producing other than debt.

Goldman would go away on it's own if vital industries were nationalized and they were prevented from making a profit on them. Let them put their investments into what is considered non-essential. For example a cell phone is essential in this day and age. An IPhone is not essential. Basic cell service would be provided on a non -profit basis. Extras would be provided on a profit basis. Apple would still have a stock.

I believe I read recently that the US oil companies produced enough to supply all of our domestic needs in 2011

sounds great !

but they export oil to markets where they can make a profit, and import cheap oil to help the bottom line as well

so if we tell them to keep it all in house, would the price go up ?

I've always thought that all "essential" business sectors like medical, oil, energy and so on should be forced to become non profit companies. Imagine how much easier life would be for the "common" people if that was to happen.