Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

Why doesn't the US just nationalize all the gas corporations? Why is such a critical strategic resource left in the hands of private citizens, who have the intent of maximizing profits for their own well-being, over everyone else?

Uh, the US was founded by private citizens intending to maximize profits for their own well-being, who convinced a bunch of poor farmers that their lives would be better if people rather than governments had control of critical strategic resources.
This isn't a new concept: The British heavily regulated the Lumber Industry in Maine because they needed the tallest, strongest trees for masts.
You were NOT going to be selling those trees to the Dutch.

Also, the obvious jokes about gas corporations paying off enough politicians to keep this from ever happening is still applicable.
I mean, you DO know that former Vice President Dick Cheney's claim-to-fame was his connections with the oil industry?
And Trump certainly wasn't going to divest rich people.
Hell, even Biden probably has corporate sponsors if you look deep enough.

[hector13]

Biden isn’t some kind of socialist supreme, man. Dems are as dirty as Republicans when it comes to where they get their cash.

[Frumple]

Eh, not really. Like, they both get from rich fucks and sometimes the same ones, but the ones that are GOP only tend to be particularly fucking odious.

Dem party got its problems on the funding front, but whenever you find yourself saying the dems are as bad as the GOP you've probably missed something 'cause that's pretty much fucking never true at this point.

[McTraveller]

I think one of the few things that would in fact make me consider leaving the US is if they did something like nationalize an industry.

That stuff never turns out well.

The only way I'd accept anything that looked remotely like nationalization is if they did it like say Alaska, where in exchange for a drilling or refining permit, you have to pay into a fund that is paid out to every citizen.  You know, like a citizens dividend.  That's the kind of UBI I'd get behind, funded by returns from actual productive endeavors, rather than trying to come up with stupidly complicated tax systems with exemption levels, that is "fair" regardless of geographic differences and different costs of living across the country, etc etc.

[Starver]

Americans are allergic to any hint of 'socialism', even when it is barely so. To be honest, as of Thatcher's accelerated purge of the various homegrown nationalisms[1] that existed, the UK has been moving away from it, and the NHS and (though not 'traditionally' nationalised, as they are) our Public Service Broadcasters have been leaned on quite capriciously by her successors...  One bank was sort-of-nationalised in response to 2008ish financial stuff (I think the government has divested itself of the remaining sharea it took on, a year or two ago) but the Bank Of England was also released from direct government control at some point (and all the Bank Of <Other Region>s I'm fairly sure already were non-governmental entities, but don't quote me on that) and Brown got a lot of flack for selling the gold-reserves off too cheaply (or even that he did at all, depending upon the economistic theory being favoured by the flack-firer).

...But, compared to us, the US seems to have far more "smaller and smaller government" inclinations than otherwise. I could see the situation of Snow Crash (remaining 'Federal' claves are rare non-corporately-goverened zones in a sea of microstate/megabucks mash-up, and there are requeste not to block the toilets up with dollar-value pieces of paper that are more cost-effective than genuine TP) if some segments of the political establishment get their way whilst the other segments generally don't try very hard at all to stop them...

And the distinct impression that the groundswell of support for all such hyperantinationalisations you get to see evolving in the US is very much "turkeys voting for christmas" stuff.


@McT, you ninja you: I don't think you're nevessarily being a turkey here, because I also think that nationalisation by the US is probably also going to be done in the least useful way with loads of bad ideas bolted onto it by those who would have stopped it but have switched to making any inevitable progression turn out just right for them, and I suspect that's what gives you concern also. Something like, anyway. But, yes, something like the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund derived from the original oil-boom (something that the UK could have done, but didn't, in what probably turned out to be a bad decision beyond the short-term gains), except of course it would have to be something a bit more future-friendly.

[1] Absolutely all the standard utilities, Telephones, Water, Eletricity, Gas... Trains and Buses and even in some small ways the roads themselves. These days (but it started back then) also a push towards Academy-style education (both as a punishment for failing and also as a reward for not doing so!), give or take regional attitudes to Tuition Fees at the Higher level, to buck the trend. And of course Coal, but that was more like an Extinction than a Privatisation. There's some reverse

[Frumple]

I think one of the few things that would in fact make me consider leaving the US is if they did something like nationalize an industry.

That stuff never turns out well.

Post office was doing fine, last I checked, actually? Even with the blatant sabotage over the years. Definitely not a good reason to flee the country, ha. You can see a brief-ish history on the subject of stateside nationalization here.

I definitely think there's a pile of stuff that could stand it. Even if it doesn't turn out well, you can not turn out well and still be a marked improvement over the horseshit privatized businesses dump on people, heh.

I'd be fine with just regulating certain markets into the fucking ground and maybe chucking their current industry leaders into a woodchipper, too. Mostly joking on that last bit. _Mostly.

[MaxTheFox]

Why doesn't the US just nationalize all the gas corporations? Why is such a critical strategic resource left in the hands of private citizens, who have the intent of maximizing profits for their own well-being, over everyone else?

You see, Lidku, when the government does literally any intervention in the economy, it's COMMUNISM!

[delphonso]

Personally, I would consider moving back if they start nationalizing more stuff.

[McTraveller]

Haha the funny thing is, most of the people who scream about "communism" in the US are the ones that are most likely ex military and using Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid which combined are the most socialistic programs we have. I mean seriously Social Security is one -ism short of their Big Bad Word.

I don't count the USPS as something that was nationalized, because it didn't "take over" anything that was already there (well, maybe it did organize a bunch of disparate services? Can't remember if it was created fresh, or if it did appropriate something else), and it is not the only parcel service, nor does it prohibit any other parcel services.  And that's the connotation (even though it probably differs from book definition) of nationalization anyway - basically imminent domain but for an industry, rather than just land.

[Rolan7]

I still think we should have nationalized the banks which failed back under Obama's term.  I truly struggled to understand that we were simply bailing them out with public money without, you know, making them public assets.

We tried the private system, it failed, and they held the economy hostage - the solution was so painfully clear that the reality check kinda broke my faith in the system.

Best part is we would have been restoring functions to the post office, which used to be a bank of sorts before "we" decided to privatize banking.  The experiment failed, and we continued it due to graft.

[Egan_BW]

social security-ism?

[Starver]

social security-ism?

Sociarity Seculism!

[scriver]

You could have done what Sweden did in the 90's Swedish economic crash and bought out the failing banks and then allowed them to buy themselves back over time. I'm more and more for a state run savings bank though, especially in these times when money is becoming more and more electric (Sweden is moving away from cash at way too fast a speed). When money ceases to be something you can actually physically have then the authorities need to stop in and promote some kind of counterweight to private banks, or else you lose all practical ability to control your own wealth. It basically just becomes a giant blackmailing/hostage situation.

I'm generally pro-nationalisation, though (of course different types of business sectors are better left private than others), particularly regarding things that were recently privatised here in Sweden, as studies show public (this is the right word for nationalised stuff in English right?) run organisations vastly outperformed the current private ones. For example, I'd like our postal service and apothecaries re-nationalised, the trains and the telephone (and internet) services.

As for banks... The thing is, there actually used to be huge grassroots banks and insurance organisations over here (I'm sure similar stuff was going on over in the US too) with lots of smaller, union-like organisations. But like so much of the old ways this has changed completely since the 70s and 80s with the death of grassroots/association movement/engagement of all kinds and these have all been bought up or moved away from the old model to a more standard corporation one. So on the whole the banking business situation is not at all as healthy as it used to be, and it's the little person who ends up in a worse place for it.

[EuchreJack]

I'm anti-nationalization (what a shock), but I agree with scriver that the US Government should have interfered more with the businesses they were bailing out.
At a minimum, those bail outs should instead have been equity shares in the entities involved, with a clear plan to get the businesses back in shape and out of Government ownership.

Hey, when you don't pay the Bank, the Bank takes your House.  Why is the Bank being treated better than me?

[hector13]

Because the bank has more money than you, the people who own the bank have more money than you, and the people who run the bank have more money than you.