Socialize Offshore Oil?

[Revoltingest]

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.

I find voting by the citizenry the poorest way to get rid of a bad manager. If a company begins to fail, the board can make headw roll sooner than 4 years.
If they don't take action, at least the company fails, & management loses control. But in government, I just don't see that incompetence is cured by electing
a replacement. Typically, voters merely have an emotional reaction instead of a reasoned choice based upon a thorough understanding of their own values &
the issues. So many voters I know favored Obama simply because he wasn't of the party of Dubya.

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.

I agree completely. Voter apathy & stupidity are not curable. A system must take into account this incontrovertible fact, & yield positive results in spite of it.
That's one reason I'd rather be exploited by business than exploited by government. Socialist & communist economies are necessarily highly centralized, putting
them at grave risk when the wrong people are in charge of government, eg, The PRC (before they embraced capitalism), The USSR, N Korea. Certainly, if we
have an honest & competent government there's a possibility that socialism could be more efficient than capitalism for the larger enterprises. But look at the
leaders we've had in the US: GW Bush, Joe Biden, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, B Obama. Even if you like one of them, what about the others? Would you want
them in charge of a socialist economy, depending upon them for food, fuel, housing, health care, etc? There's the problem....people you detest will be in charge
of your country's livelihood.

 

[linwood]

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

Then you`re neglecting the fact that in this day and age they are both one and the same.


The only very real difference I can see is that the people get to replace the politicians when they deem fit.

That only leaves the problem (That you pointed out and I agree with)of 97% of people being unqualified to make such choices.

None of this will really work until you change that percentage drastically.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you`re neglecting the fact that in this day and age they are both one and the same.
The only very real difference I can see is that the people get to replace the politicians when they deem fit.

People get to replace bad government & bad politicians, but they don't. But in business, failure often results in
replacement - think Arthur Anderson, DeLorean, Circuit City, F&M, Jacobson's, Washington Mutual, etc. They're
replaced by successful companies.

That only leaves the problem (That you pointed out and I agree with)of 97% of people being unqualified to make such choices.
None of this will really work until you change that percentage drastically.

The percentage of fools & charlatans in the citizenry cannot be changed. The best we can
do is design a system which is maximally tolerant of them, & succeeds in spite of them.

 

[Willamena]

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?

Why Norway's offshore drilling is safer - Gulf Oil Spill 2010 | Gulf Oil Spill Pictures, Gulf Oil Spill News - Salon.com

Norway has made it indisputable that at least one government can operate offshore oil drilling and exploration safer than private companies. Plus, the revenues from oil lower Norway's taxes.

Frankly, I still can't believe all our natural resources aren't socialized. It's just common sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Frankly, I still can't believe all our natural resources aren't socialized. It's just common sense.

Just wait.....just wait.

 

[dust1n]

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.



I agree in principle.




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




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.

Whoops.. sorry about my examples.. Here's more:

• 1976 - Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act PL 94-435
• 1977 - Emergency Natural Gas Act PL 95-2
• 1978 - Airline Deregulation Act PL 95-50
• 1978 - National Gas Policy Act PL 95-621
• 1980 - Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act PL 96-221
• 1980 - Motor Carrier Act PL 96-296
• 1980 - Regulatory Flexibility Act PL 96-354
• 1980 - Staggers Rail Act PL 96-448
• 1982 - Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act PL 97-320
• 1982 - Bus Regulatory Reform Act PL 97-261
• 1989 - Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act PL 101-60
• 1992 - National Energy Policy Act PL 102-486
• 1996 - Telecommunications Act PL 104-104
• 1999 - Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act PL 106-102

Deregulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mathematician]

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.

Corporations often sponsor regulation bills as a way to tighten the noose around smaller competitors. Do you recall flavored cigarettes? Companies like Philip Morris were lobbying for their ban with more money than the anti-smoking charities. In public the major tobacco companies were lamenting about teenage addiction; privately the insiders were afraid that these newer competitors were intruding on their turf. Philip Morris didn't make flavored cigarettes other than menthol, which was conveniently allowed a stay. The bill only passed after RJR cut off ties with its unsuccessful flavored brands 2 years earlier. Prior to then some of the major tobacco companies had fought against the bill, but once it became clear that foreign companies were winning out in the rat race...

Capitalists form coalitions only when threatened with their complete economic annihilation.

 

[Mathematician]

I find voting by the citizenry the poorest way to get rid of a bad manager. If a company begins to fail, the board can make headw roll sooner than 4 years.
If they don't take action, at least the company fails, & management loses control. But in government, I just don't see that incompetence is cured by electing
a replacement. Typically, voters merely have an emotional reaction instead of a reasoned choice based upon a thorough understanding of their own values &
the issues. So many voters I know favored Obama simply because he wasn't of the party of Dubya.

I somewhat agree. I think parliamentary elections whereby the executive is chosen by the Parliament and instantly recallable by his own party (or in extreme circumstances, when his or her party fails to attain power in the legislature) are better suited for governance than the direct election of a president.

 

[linwood]

The percentage of fools & charlatans in the citizenry cannot be changed. The best we can
do is design a system which is maximally tolerant of them, & succeeds in spite of them.

I disagree.

If humanity could abandon "magical thinking" that percentage would drop exponentially.

 

[Darkness]

Just wait.....just wait.

I simply do not trust the American Government with national resources at this stage. Unlike, Europe we have never had experience with socilaism, and I honestly do not believe we know how to handle it yet. Until we subdue the special interests' hold on the central government, I would not be comfortable handing over vast swaths of resources to the Democrats. A nice little practice lesson in socialism should have been the nationalisation of the banks President Bush and Obama gave direct capital injections. That way the federal government gets its feet wet in running banks for a year or so before they are sold back to private investors.

There is a dangerous narrative running through our culture, that regulation is the problem and not the solution. I am just not sure what alternate universe people who propagate that narrative are living in (no offense intended, I have friends who are libertarians). I know about the Community Reinvestment Act and the problems it fostered, but if that is the only regulation you can point to that caused the world-wide economic meltdown the arguement is sorely lacking. I am dismayed that we did not learn the same lessons that we, as a country, learned after the Great Depression. The government put regulations on banks limiting leverage and preventing them from taking on high-risk. We are the only Western country that seems to have a problem with Government regulation of the financial system. For crying out loud, even the Conservative party in Britain, considers financial regulation common sense. Americans do not realise how right-wing we truly are.

 

[Revoltingest]

If humanity could abandon "magical thinking" that percentage would drop exponentially.

Oh, yeah.....like that's gonna happen.
Your average citizen will never be like Ayn Rand (pbuh) or Richard Dawkins (pbuh).
The most we can hope for is Ned Flanders.

 

[Revoltingest]

I simply do not trust the American Government with national resources at this stage. Unlike, Europe we have never had experience with socilaism, and I honestly do not believe we know how to handle it yet.

True dat! It's like Obama as president, smart he might be, but he's never held an executive position before in his life. A socialist government requires great knowledge,
experience & skill to run well, since so many more eggs are in one basket, & power is so centralized. When things go bad, they go really bad (eg, USSR, PRC, N Korea).

Until we subdue the special interests' hold on the central government....

That's impossible. Special interests rule everywhere that leaders are elected, albeit by airing their views & voting rather than thru lobbyists.

There is a dangerous narrative running through our culture, that regulation is the problem and not the solution.

It is both. But the reason we hear so much about it being the problem is that regulation is the winner, ie, almost always increasing. We have 2 problems:
1) Too much regulation
2) The wrong kind of regulation

I am just not sure what alternate universe people who propagate that narrative are living in......

It's the same one. We just have very different perspectives because of different values. While I value liberty, autonomy, self-reliance, individualism &
elegant system design, the left values equality, security, & top-down control. I fear rigid control, while they fear chaos & anarchy. This colors our perceptions.

.....I know about the Community Reinvestment Act and the problems it fostered, but if that is the only regulation you can point to that caused the world-wide economic meltdown the arguement is sorely lacking.

It is not. I've listed many in other threads. For example, the ADA caused a huge loss in equity as 2nd floors became off limits to business unless you had an elevator to make it accessible. The ADA was designed to have problems like this sorted out in court, which has been a very long process. I watched commercial properties in my downtown become "see-throughs" on the upper floors. Things have eased somewhat. The new federal lead mitigation law (April this year) is causing havoc in residential remodeling right now.

I am dismayed that we did not learn the same lessons that we, as a country, learned after the Great Depression. The government put regulations on banks limiting leverage and preventing them from taking on high-risk.

Check out my signature. One reason I use it is that the prevailing economic view is that regulation prolonged the Great Depression by limiting foreign trade.
Regulation can be a force for good or bad, depending upon the effects, which are generally poorly understood by politicians. Few learn lessons from history.

 

[Darkness]

It's the same one. We just have very different perspectives because of different values. While I value liberty, autonomy, self-reliance, individualism & elegant system design, the left values equality, security, & top-down control. I fear rigid control, while they fear chaos & anarchy. This colors our perceptions.

I assent with you only to a certain extent. As a leftist, I do favour equality, security and I abhor chaos and anarchy. However, in my opinion, a laissez-faire economic system strangles individualism and liberty. You are not free if you are a chained to the ups and downs of the market. If you come from a low-socioeconomi class, the odds are you will not get the opportunity to attend a good college or attain a good career in the future. The idea that you can pull yourself up by your bootstaps is not a statistical reality. I do not see how that is freedom.

 

[Revoltingest]

I assent with you only to a certain extent. As a leftist, I do favour equality, security and I abhor chaos and anarchy. However, in my opinion, a laissez-faire economic system strangles individualism and liberty. You are not free if you are a chained to the ups and downs of the market. If you come from a low-socioeconomi class, the odds are you will not get the opportunity to attend a good college or attain a good career in the future. The idea that you can pull yourself up by your bootstaps is not a statistical reality. I do not see how that is freedom.

Consider the reality of actual socialist states: PRC, the old USSR, N Korea, Cuba, Laos, N Viet Nam, Mozambique, etc. You must have a novel view of individualism & liberty to find those places preferable to The USA, Canada, Australia. (Note: The USA now ranks around 8th in economic liberty according the Heritage Foundation. It's been dropping as America becomes more socialist relative to the rest of the West.) We do have different ideas of freedom. To be "chained to a laissez-faire economic system" strikes me as oxymoronic. It's not about how many people choose to rise above their low station in life, it's about the possibility that they can. I know many poor people. The vast majority of them choose to not work too hard or invest carefully. Sure they'd like to be rich, but they won't take steps to become that way. But some I know who grew up poor, became very successful by their own hand.

 

[Revoltingest]

The posts in this thread have resulted in a new signature for me.
(Don't worry......it's too long to last too long.)

 

[Darkness]

Consider the reality of actual socialist states: PRC, the old USSR, N Korea, Cuba, Laos, N Viet Nam, Mozambique, etc. You must have a novel view of individualism & liberty to find those places preferable to The USA, Canada, Australia. (Note: The USA now ranks around 8th in economic liberty according the Heritage Foundation. It's been dropping as America becomes more socialist relative to the rest of the West.) We do have different ideas of freedom. To be "chained to a laissez-faire economic system" strikes me as oxymoronic. It's not about how many people choose to rise above their low station in life, it's about the possibility that they can. I know many poor people. The vast majority of them choose to not work too hard or invest carefully. Sure they'd like to be rich, but they won't take steps to become that way. But some I know who grew up poor, became very successful by their own hand.

You are misunderstanding what I mean by the word socialism. Socialism is not necessarily a system where all the means of production are controlled by the State. PRC, the old USSR, N Korea, Cuba, Laos, N Viet Nam, Mozambique all embraced the idea of Communism (i.e. a centrally-planned economy) which is merely one form of socialism. I am a Social Democrat and I do not believe in the tenents of Marxism. I think a classless society would, not only be impossible to achieve, but would punish those who work hard. Take a look at the socialist parties in European countries some time. They are not advocating a goverment take over of the entire market.

You say that you know a lot of poor people who do not work hard. Well, I know a lot of rich people who do not work hard. In fact, a large majority of rich people are rich because their parents worked hard, not because they deserve the riches due to the merits of hard work.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are misunderstanding what I mean by the word socialism. Socialism is not necessarily a system where all the means of production are controlled by the State. PRC, the old USSR, N Korea, Cuba, Laos, N Viet Nam, Mozambique all embraced the idea of Communism (i.e. a centrally-planned economy) which is merely one form of socialism. I am a Social Democrat and I do not believe in the tenents of Marxism. I think a classless society would, not only be impossible to achieve, but would punish those who work hard. Take a look at the socialist parties in European countries some time. They are not advocating a goverment take over of the entire market.

You say that you know a lot of poor people who do not work hard. Well, I know a lot of rich people who do not work hard. In fact, a large majority of rich people are rich because their parents worked hard, not because they deserve the riches due to the merits of hard work.

I have no idea what percentage of the rich inherited their wealth, but I see that as a good thing. The ability to pass wealth on to one's children is a motivator.
I wouldn't bother to work hard if I knew the government would get it all. Once again, I've no use for government enforced equality....I want opportunity for those who wish to use it.
Btw, every wealthy person I personally know was born poor or middle class.

 

[Darkness]

Once again, I've no use for government enforced equality....I want opportunity for those who wish to use it.

I would disagree that that opportunity exists under the current American economic system, but we could argue that point till the sun burns out, and I do not see the point. All that is left is to shake hands and let the voters decide which type of system they desire.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would disagree that that opportunity exists under the current American economic system, but we could argue that point till the sun burns out, and I do not see the point. All that is left is to shake hands and let the voters decide which type of system they desire.

That opportunity exists isn't really open to dispute. There are just too many examples of people of modest background becoming wildly successful.
It seems that the amount of opportunity could be argued, but I'll skip that. Economics always boils down to values, & analysis is usually agenda
driven rather than by neutral & objective evaluation. I prefer liberty, & socialists prefer security. The twain may meet....with some compromise.

 

[dust1n]

I prefer liberty, & socialists prefer security.

I do not security, what I do need is for business not to have security, and I'll disestablish every corrupt business in a couple of months.