I agree with you Robert -- Nationalization of the major public oils will likely become a serious topic. I'm not sure if it will be huge prices or real shortages that drive it to the forefront though. If we want to offer ideas in this thread it would be beneficial for folks to define exactly what they mean. “Nationalization” it self is at best ambiguous and at worst meaningless. I think any practical (and achievable) response to the worst effects of PO will require some form of significant involvement of the gov’t in the free market system IMO. But I doubt taking ownership of the companies would ever be a serious. olks upset about pump prices might fantasize about such possibilities but it’s good to remember that ExxonMobil isn’t owned by Mr. XOM. It’s owned by the American people. Destroying trillions of $’s of the retirement accounts of citizenship, including many union members won’t happen IMO.
But I do believe there has to be some sort of coordinated efforts between the private sector and the gov’t. I can’t see any real progress on any front given the volatility we’ve seen in the market. A few months ago low oil prices killed much of the incentives for alternatives. Even with prices climbing I doubt much capital will be funneled that way without some certainty that those prices will stay elevated for many years. I personally haven’t been able to come up with any model that is politically doable. Maybe some of the clever folks here have some ideas worth sharing
Nationalization of the major public oils will likely become a serious topic.
Perhaps by the time we get to that point - and that's only the "we" that is hashing it out on a forum like this - it will be too late and the decisions will already have been made.
Frankly, I can't imagine they have not already been made. Which sends me back to the current economic collapse. The money seems to be going directly to Wall Street, yet over the past few quarters it's been the biggest energy companies cashing out with record profits.
"Nationalizing the oils" is an ugly concept. OK if you nationalize a company where all of the assets and liabilities are within the nation. Not OK where we are talking about Iraq and other countries.
Nationalize our footprint fine. Dump our trash on others? No way. Of course, that is why we must "support the troops". What heroes.
(1) If the public wants something but the rulers don't, then the bosses pretend to do it. If the rulers want something but the public don't, then the bosses pretend not to do it (usually while everyone's on hols in August). In either case the propaganda gets tuned up sometime in advance.
(2) Nationalise the unprofitable, privatise the profitable.
(Though in this case other considerations could overrule this.)
(3) The propaganda is all about protecting society and especially the ordinary and vulnerable. The reality is about retaining privilege to the already privileged.
I agree with you Robert -- Nationalization of the major public oils will likely become a serious topic. I'm not sure if it will be huge prices or real shortages that drive it to the forefront though. If we want to offer ideas in this thread it would be beneficial for folks to define exactly what they mean. “Nationalization” it self is at best ambiguous and at worst meaningless. I think any practical (and achievable) response to the worst effects of PO will require some form of significant involvement of the gov’t in the free market system IMO. But I doubt taking ownership of the companies would ever be a serious. olks upset about pump prices might fantasize about such possibilities but it’s good to remember that ExxonMobil isn’t owned by Mr. XOM. It’s owned by the American people. Destroying trillions of $’s of the retirement accounts of citizenship, including many union members won’t happen IMO.
But I do believe there has to be some sort of coordinated efforts between the private sector and the gov’t. I can’t see any real progress on any front given the volatility we’ve seen in the market. A few months ago low oil prices killed much of the incentives for alternatives. Even with prices climbing I doubt much capital will be funneled that way without some certainty that those prices will stay elevated for many years. I personally haven’t been able to come up with any model that is politically doable. Maybe some of the clever folks here have some ideas worth sharing
Perhaps by the time we get to that point - and that's only the "we" that is hashing it out on a forum like this - it will be too late and the decisions will already have been made.
Frankly, I can't imagine they have not already been made. Which sends me back to the current economic collapse. The money seems to be going directly to Wall Street, yet over the past few quarters it's been the biggest energy companies cashing out with record profits.
"Nationalizing the oils" is an ugly concept. OK if you nationalize a company where all of the assets and liabilities are within the nation. Not OK where we are talking about Iraq and other countries.
Nationalize our footprint fine. Dump our trash on others? No way. Of course, that is why we must "support the troops". What heroes.
cfm in Gray, ME
The general rules of realpolitik are:
(1) If the public wants something but the rulers don't, then the bosses pretend to do it. If the rulers want something but the public don't, then the bosses pretend not to do it (usually while everyone's on hols in August). In either case the propaganda gets tuned up sometime in advance.
(2) Nationalise the unprofitable, privatise the profitable.
(Though in this case other considerations could overrule this.)
(3) The propaganda is all about protecting society and especially the ordinary and vulnerable. The reality is about retaining privilege to the already privileged.