Socialize Offshore Oil?

[Revoltingest]

Socialism is demonized, and then anything involving a stronger government is always called socialistic, but there is no real equivalent for the right - at least not in a popular light.....

If the right is so effective at opposing socialism & more government, then
why is the government growing so much so fast? I'd say the right is losing,
just not on the massive scale of us Libertarians. We know losing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Offshore oil is a valuable resource, but private companies don't have the best record of going after it in a safe and effective manner. The pressure for profits makes them take shortcuts with safety. So, maybe the best way to go after offshore oil deposits is for the government to do it. What do you think?

Corporations are good at making decisions in their own self-interest; I think the simplest approach to the problem at the governmental level is to provide the laws, penalties and enforcement so that safety and environmental impacts will represent direct costs to the corporation instead of being externalities.

 

[dust1n]

If the right is so effective at opposing socialism & more government, then
why is the government growing so much so fast? I'd say the right is losing,
just not on the massive scale of us Libertarians. We know losing.

Government is more influenced by big business than anything else.

Things are more privatized than they have been since the beginning of the century.

 

[dust1n]

I did enjoy it. I assent that policy should be the underlying, driving force. I also believe a well-organised propaganda machine is necessary for good people to make a difference. That is the Machiavelli in me.

I would agree to some extent though, I much rather education be nationalized and standardized testing done away with, and the need for propaganda might go away.

 

[dust1n]

Corporations are good at making decisions in their own self-interest; I think the simplest approach to the problem at the governmental level is to provide the laws, penalties and enforcement so that safety and environmental impacts will represent direct costs to the corporation instead of being externalities.

That's basically it in a nutshell.

From what I have looked into, there is a mechanism that could be put into to play to automatically cut the flow of oil, and that both Sweden and Brazil governments require that mechanism to be put into place on all oil rigs. The same idea passed through the American government, but since the mechanism cost a half a million dollars to install, Exxon was successful at lobbying enough to keep the regulation for being put into place.

 

[Revoltingest]

Government is more influenced by big business than anything else.

This is, of course, a judgment call. If big business holds such sway, why has regulation & taxation of them increased so much in the last century?
We saw the implementation of the following on businesses: anti-discrimination laws, payroll taxes, zoning laws, protected species, natural features
takings, rent control, licensing requirements, homeland security laws, housing codes, family leave laws, etc, etc. Big business sure seems to be doing
a bad job of running government to get their own way.
Note: I'm speaking only to a general case, rather than specific corrupt relationships such as highly favorable bail-outs of financial companies.

Things are more privatized than they have been since the beginning of the century.

Given the massive increase in control over business,
I'm skeptical of your privatization claim. Do you have evidence of this?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's basically it in a nutshell.

From what I have looked into, there is a mechanism that could be put into to play to automatically cut the flow of oil, and that both Sweden and Brazil governments require that mechanism to be put into place on all oil rigs. The same idea passed through the American government, but since the mechanism cost a half a million dollars to install, Exxon was successful at lobbying enough to keep the regulation for being put into place.

I'd heard of this, but a quick search turned up no story on it. Do you have a link?

 

[dust1n]

I'd heard of this, but a quick search turned up no story on it. Do you have a link?

Overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

 

[Revoltingest]

Overview:

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find "libertarian socialism" to often be an oxymoron with some adherents. The problem is the emphasis on equality. If this is forced upon people,
then it would not be libertarian. Libertarian socialism could exist though, provided that membership in a socialist community is voluntary, & that
members may exit .

However, I was asking about a link for issue about the oil well valve requirement being scuttled by Exxon's lobbying efforts.
(Half a million sounds way to cheap for a valve which could do that.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I would agree to some extent though, I much rather education be nationalized and standardized testing done away with, and the need for propaganda might go away.

Wow, that would require a major re-write of the Constitution.

 

[dust1n]

This is, of course, a judgment call. If big business holds such sway, why has regulation & taxation of them increased so much in the last century?

The increase of regulation & taxation with the last century is mainly a result of the social unrest of the left from the 00's through the 30's and stayed in tact mainly until Reagan, who privatized everything.

We saw the implementation of the following on businesses: anti-discrimination laws, payroll taxes, zoning laws, protected species, natural features
takings, rent control, licensing requirements, homeland security laws, housing codes, family leave laws, etc, etc. Big business sure seems to be doing
a bad job of running government to get their own way.
Note: I'm speaking only to a general case, rather than specific corrupt relationships such as highly favorable bail-outs of financial companies.

It's important to realize that businesses often have opposing interests in terms of regulations, in that one regulation can be advantageous to a company but hurt another. These competing interests pay for lobbies. Lobbies attempt paying for votes from Senators. Some of those laws are a result of people's demand, as without certain laws to prevent something from happening to them the people on a large scale is getting effectively tremendously. Others appear to be for the better good and in reality are not.

Some of those examples
Given the massive increase in control over business,
I'm skeptical of your privatization claim. Do you have evidence of this?

The Government has approved the list of organizations that will be privatized in 2010. The Government Property Committee, which is responsible for implementing the work, has been given the added task, together with Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy D.Zorigt, of devising proper methods to let the Government take control of its shares in strategic mines. The bureau has also been asked to submit by the third quarter of 2010 a report on how to trade some such shares in domestic and foreign stock exchanges.

http://www.mongolia-web.com/government-and-politics/2692-privatization-list-approved



Privatization has been part of economic life for over 25 years and is increasingly becoming a core policy tool for over 100 countries around the world (Megginson 2005). Since the early 1990s, it has been the mantra of many development agencies. Privatization is a political phenomenon which creates new rules and roles for state, market and civil society actors (Savas 1987). It is argued that private ownership is more efficient in delivering services compared to the state. There are four major objectives of privatization: to achieve higher allocative and productive efficiency; to strengthen the role of the private sector in the economy; to improve the public sector’s financial position; to free resources for allocation in other important sectors such as social policy (Sheshinski and Lopez-Calva 2003).

Impact of Privatization of Public Services on the Poor | Markets, Business and Regulation | Research | UNRISD

 

[Revoltingest]

The increase of regulation & taxation with the last century is mainly a result of the social unrest of the left from the 00's through the 30's and stayed in tact mainly until Reagan, who privatized everything.

Everything? You might find this article interesting.
Comparing Presidents - The Size of Government | Angry Bear
I'd say that government expanded during Reagan's reign.

....businesses often have opposing interests in terms of regulations, in that one regulation can be advantageous to a company but hurt another. These competing interests pay for lobbies. Lobbies attempt paying for votes from Senators. Some of those laws are a result of people's demand, as without certain laws to prevent something from happening to them the people on a large scale is getting effectively tremendously. Others appear to be for the better good and in reality are not.

I agree in principle.

The Government has approved the list of organizations that will be privatized in 2010. The Government Property Committee, which is responsible for implementing the work, has been given the added task, together with Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy D.Zorigt, of devising proper methods to let the Government take control of its shares in strategic mines. The bureau has also been asked to submit by the third quarter of 2010 a report on how to trade some such shares in domestic and foreign stock exchanges.

The above & your link apply to Mongolia, but I thought we were discussing the the US.

Privatization has been part of economic life for over 25 years and is increasingly becoming a core policy tool for over 100 countries around the world (Megginson 2005). Since the early 1990s, it has been the mantra of many development agencies......omportant sectors such as social policy (Sheshinski and Lopez-Calva 2003).

Impact of Privatization of Public Services on the Poor | Markets, Business and Regulation | Research | UNRISD

Once again, this doesn't apply to the US. I'm not addressing other countries, particularly since they have nothing to do with nationalizing American oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[DoctorAnswerMan]

Can they recycle any of the oil they collect from the spill in the Gulf?
Why do they not have mechanism in place to pump that stuff up into tankers right off the surface?
What in the world are any of these people thinking?
Oh, wait a minute, what's that you say? Politicians and oil companies don't care about these things?
OH, OK. I get it now!

 

[Revoltingest]

.....Politicians and oil companies don't care about these things?....

Good evening, Doc! I'm off to see Ironman 2 soon, but first....
....Everyone's caring a whole bunch now. BP, the contractor who ran the platform for them, & the company which made the equipment are watching the potential
costs of their liability balloon. (Toes will be very very jammed.) Politicians are also caring a great deal about making political hay by feigning concern about it.

 

[linwood]

So it would be easier to go against that army of lobbyist when attempting to fully remove the oil companies from off-shore drilling, than it would be to create regulation?

It might not be easier but it would only be one battle and it`s over.

Big Oil will fight every and any bit of regulation/legislation it has to...forever and ever.

One big fight or a thousand smaller fights.

I`ll take the big one.



I`d socialize it in a heartbeat.

I`m always hearing how essential oil is to American security so why do we have these self serving idiots in charge of it?

 

[Revoltingest]

I`m always hearing how essential oil is to American security so why do we have these self serving idiots in charge of it?

Why? Because I trust profiteering idiots far more than politicians.
Bear in mind that you will get an unpredictable mixed bag of politicians who will run it....the bi-partisan pandering corrupt buffoonish bureaucrats of
DC, ranging from Republicans like GW Bush, Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover & Joe McCarthy...all the way to Democrats like Joe Biden, Barney Frank,
Bill Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, Tim Geithner, & Eric Holder. Put that crew in charge of something expensive, highly flammable & toxic? No way, Jose.
That's the same bunch who gave us the Hanford Nuclear Reactor disaster (most contaminated nuclear site in the US). They also gave us the Katrina
mess, the trillion dollar bail-out debacle, the Iraq war, the Iran hostage rescue, the Viet Nam war, the IRS, the Kelo decision, etc. Lest you forget,
the acronyms FUBAR & SNAFU, are government terms of self-description for how they run things. We all know what they stand for.

 

[Sunstone]

Why? Because I trust profiteering idiots far more than politicians.
Bear in mind that you will get an unpredictable mixed bag of politicians who will run it....the bi-partisan pandering corrupt buffoonish bureaucrats of
DC, ranging from Republicans like GW Bush, Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover & Joe McCarthy...all the way to Democrats like Joe Biden, Barney Frank,
Bill Clinton, Rod Blagojevich, Tim Geithner, & Eric Holder. Put that crew in charge of something expensive, highly flammable & toxic? No way, Jose.
That's the same bunch who gave us the Hanford Nuclear Reactor disaster (most contaminated nuclear site in the US). They also gave us the Katrina
mess, the trillion dollar bail-out debacle, the Iraq war, the Iran hostage rescue, the Viet Nam war, the IRS, the Kelo decision, etc. Lest you forget,
the acronyms FUBAR & SNAFU, are government terms of self-description for how they run things. We all know what they stand for.

You have a fair grasp of how stupid politicians can be, but you seem charmingly naive of how stupid corporate executives can be. A realist -- unblinded by a petty ideology -- might say that both groups had their share of stupid clowns.

 

[JMorris]

You have a fair grasp of how stupid politicians can be, but you seem charmingly naive of how stupid corporate executives can be. A realist -- unblinded by a petty ideology -- might say that both groups had their share of stupid clowns.

"charmingly"

 

[Revoltingest]

You have a fair grasp of how stupid politicians can be, but you seem charmingly naive of how stupid corporate executives can be. A realist -- unblinded by a petty ideology -- might say that both groups had their share of stupid clowns.

You misunderstand me. I believe that 97% of people are below average intelligence....& dishonest too. Problems cannot be solved by saying, "Hey, let's just hire smart
& ethical people!" That won't happen. Any organization will hire a cross-section of people from the available labor pool. So the trick is to design a system which best
meets its goals (with minimal risk of failure) with the mixture of winners & losers who comprise humanity. I prefer businesses operating in a competitive environment
with effective regulation. Business can be held accountable by government...far more easily than government can be held accountable by government. No organization
can objectively & fairly police itself from within. Example: I once had a deputy sheriff working for me (part time) doing maintenance. He always kept his hat on his
dashboard so that if he got pulled over for drunk driving, he'd get a free pass. He also regaled me with stories of summary justice (ie, thumping civilians for
crimes on the spot, such as insulting him). Abuse of civilians was tolerated where he worked, & no one watched the watchers.

Business executives:
It's important that companies be allowed to fail when they can't make a profit as a result of not competitively serving their customers. That's the ultimate mechanism
for removing incompetent managers....after the personnel system fails to do its job. But in government, profitability isn't a factor, since tax revenue always flows in,
even when 'services' to "customers' are lousy. Where else would a man who can't correctly do his own income taxes (either by ignorance or cheating) be put in charge
of the IRS?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Why? Because I trust profiteering idiots far more than politicians.

I've been in agreement with the vast majority of what you've said in this thread, but on this point, we disagree.

Politicians may (or may not) be corrupt, but unlike CEO's and the people that control the boards of major corporations, we get a chance to recall them every four years. When you get an out of control CEO, the process of replacing them takes much longer, and the decision on who replaces them falls to a very limited group of people.

The problem in America is voter apathy. Leaving corrupt politicians in office is the direct fault of the voters. Louisiana finally voted William Jefferson out of office, but the vast majority of politicians have to be convicted before the voters wake up.