Should Oil Be Nationalized?

Should Oil Be Nationalized?


Let’s go next to our caller from the seven
oh two area code. Who’s calling today from seven oh two. Hi, this is Christian. Uh, is this me on there? Yes it is. And are we on Speaker Phone or
Bluetooth? Christian. Oh, you were, but now you’re on headset. I
love it. Awesome. So, uh, I know you’ve got a lot of callers, I’ll make it quick, but
it is somewhat substantive. Um, been a fan for 10 years. I’m curious on your take on
some, uh, policies I’ve recently re-explore it and kind of changed my mind on, I’ve always
considered myself kind of a, I hate labels, so I don’t even like the word moderate cause
it implies that the truth is in the middle. [inaudible] what would you them I tried to
avoid extremes, right? And, uh, recently I’ve come to the realization that a lot of preconceived
beliefs that I would think I wouldn’t like I’m hyper liberal and love politics even I
I think had been victim of a lot of propaganda and information campaigns or disinformation
campaigns. And uh, I’m curious if you’ve ever thought about nationalizing, uh, natural resources
much like Norway does to their oil. Cause I was thinking about oil in America for example,
is ran by a handful of families, right? And in countries like Norway, the country actually
profits directly from selling the oil itself with no middleman. And you know, business
who in business likes middlemen and is kind of a strange concept to think about. I mean
we’re already talking about healthcare, right? We’re going to talk already talking about
education. Why aren’t natural resources being added to the just the discussion because the
oil is like a trillion dollar plus industry. Well, I think more than just the size of the
industry. I’ve thought about it because so what’s the argument right now for making the
Internet a public utility? The argument is that the Internet is so fundamental to every
aspect of almost everyone’s lives, that the idea of making it a saleable product for profits
starts to become problematic. And I think that would be the reason I think we should
get off of fossil fuels. But to the extent that every aspect of what we do relies on
them, why are we allowing for profit corporations to take advantage of that? Now, the only problem
with that is often, so the argument that a pro business center rightest would make is,
hold on a second. It was for profit companies that took the initial risk financially and
often it’s more than just a financial risk to establish the systems to harvest the oil.
Therefore, it would be wrong for the government to just come in and take them over. And I’m
not completely, uh, I mean there is some logic to that argument, but that doesn’t, yeah,
to some degree, to some degree, like [inaudible] the subsidies that we employ,
essentially, it’s like these pharmaceutical companies are taxed. Like I’ve looked into
it. Even the Bush family, the CIA gave George was sick. Well, he didn’t. So it’s like, to
some degree, yes, there’s going to be, wait, what happened to see, I woke at George
Bush. What, what did, what did the CA give George Bush? Oh, the CIA gave George a, the Bush family.
Their oil start. Okay. Well, because he was so invested in the CIA career was oh yeah.
Oh, it’s a, uh, I watched a documentary on it. But, um, the point of all of that is to
say, I know that individuals are still going to be, so we’ll take you on muskie man. Right.
But people criticize Tesla cause it was birthed through subsidy. But the reality of course
is everybody wished they could get a $5 billion subsidy from the government. Not Everybody’s
qualified too. So that doesn’t take away from the credit of the achievement of starting
the company to some degree when we’re talking about the product, uh, the property of the
country itself, because Tesla is not the car, the Tesla and the products that produces are
not the property of the country just because they gave them a subsidy. No, and it’s not a resource in the same way
that oil is here. Right, exactly. Right. And I’m with you off of fossil
fuels as long term ideally, but it’s still a huge portion of not just our economy of
international economy and like you said, it just doesn’t make sense to me that these people
profit. The pharmaceuticals are the most insane example of that, of course. Because literally
we’re funding the research development start to tail end and then at the end of it they
go, okay, now we’re going to rip you off that. That’s ludicrous. Particularly when a lot of the people doing
the research went to public school and they rely on the justice system and law enforcement
to enforce contracts and make sure no one steals their stuff. But yeah, I mean listen,
from a practical perspective, Christian, we’re going to get off of fossil fuels sooner than
we nationalize oil. So I think that we should just put, put the focus on that at this point. Well, well and not to take them with time.
I’m curious cause it is very radical, right. That’s part of why, and this is, I don’t mean
to take up too much time, but I met g curious about your thoughts on it. So I had a discussion
with a friend. Long Story Short, a lot of people are really feeling uh, yeah. Uh, Andrew
Yang because he seems like a young ideas driven guy who’s less wrapped up in the politics
of it. I actually, to be honest, if I’m being frank, I kind of lean towards the Yang cause
they seems a little more savvy. Okay. Hello? Okay. That was weird. Well listen, yeah, I
mean I don’t know. I don’t know what to say about Andrew Yang. I’ve talked about him before,
but that was weird.

100 thoughts on “Should Oil Be Nationalized?

  1. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/25219/109431-WP-P158937-PUBLIC-ABSTRACT-SENT-INVESTINGINURBANRESILIENCEProtectingandPromotingDevelopmentinaChangingWorld.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

  2. Socialism has always been a popular idea among people that never earned anything in their lives or don't know how economies work.

  3. I really don't think so, I don't trust politicians to handle that much money effectively plus I feel like it incentivises offensive wars

  4. Absolutely yes, kill those greedy oil barons, save the world from international oil exploitations (wars) and climate crisis.

    It's not just oil, all essential resources, public utilities and necessities need to be nationalised for a society to move towards sustainable development.

  5. Well They Already Want To Privatize The Profit,
    All While Socializing The Societal Cost of The Biosphere Destruction, That's Caused By It!

  6. The call was dropped just as he was praising Andrew Yang. Is the government listening? Are they scared of the coming revolution? Is this a conspiracy? The people will not be silenced! Or maybe his chin hit End.

  7. That's probably not a good idea since other countries tend to start regime change wars to get access to the oil. Other than that, it's a great idea. You use the funds to help your own people.

  8. How about radio shows, maybe they should be nationalized?

    When a man buys land and the mineral rights to said land, , how can you think of stealing from him?

  9. If we want the best baseline civility, then yes. All country's should be doing fair trade amongst one another. Guided towards what each country is in need of at that current moment in time. No more of this toppling over of each other's government; to snag resources and extortion-esque actions focused on profit for the sake of profit, weakening another governing body .

  10. No, it should not. But companies should have to pay their fair share of taxes, be forced to follow environmental regulation and shouldn’t receive any form of benefit or subsidy from the government.

  11. I don’t remember the specifics but American oil is different that middle eastern oil and for that reason we prefer the oil from there … my brother in law is a supervisor for a company that makes the piping the oil companies used and I asked him several years ago why we sent all of our oil out vs refining and selling it here and that was his explanation … I believe he said the stuff here was “too sweet” although I don’t think that has anything to do with flavor per se … I think it has something to do with the process of what is required to refined it and because of this we want the overseas oil instead … I’m sure some additional information from someone more savvy about this topic would clarify my answer and explain it better that I can

  12. Lol at David pretending he didn’t hang up on the caller. David’s position is pretty spot on though, and also I think it could almost be worse to nationalize oil when we’re trying to stop using it because it’ll inevitably come w a political incentive for candidates to promise revenues and donors to have it purchased for different amounts. That seems more dangerous for higher production levels than just regulating/banning/pricing it away

  13. Yes oil SHOULD be nationalized as should all mineral resources. In the context of a going towards a fully green economy it makes sense, because then you'd have much easier time effecting a transition away from it, since now the government can control the resources extraction. Also, in a democratic context, it makes more sense to have nationalized extraction industries because it opens the possibility for public accountability, which profit driven corporations do not have.

  14. The reason to nationalize oil (or more realistically, to begin charging market rates for extracting oil from public land) is to hasten the process of getting us off of oil permanently.

  15. China's goal is by 2030 , in ten years time , fossil fuel autos , buses , and trucks will be a thing of the past……electric is the future.

  16. Does a pro socialist channel think something should be nationalized?
    Well socialism is public ownership of the means of production, so of the answer was no you are doing socialism wrong.
    The more important question is do you believe that when you work a day do you deserve payment? Because under socialism the answer is also no.

  17. Our government subsidies oil because we overly burden them with regulations, restrictions on drilling, and artificially manage production.

  18. There's probably no other responsible way to shutter an entire industry than to nationalize it and properly care for its out-of-luck workers.

  19. Sure, because fuck the farmer and other small land owners. We cant have them making money off the land they own and pay taxes on.

  20. You know David pushes the button under the table that hangs up the phone when someone wants to sound intelligent and adds that he ‘feels’ a candidate over another lol

  21. The people who have to live by drilling right in their backyards literally, are the ones who have to suffer from poor air quality to asthma in children and elderly, to polluting ground water, to potentially creating havoc to fault lines and creating more earthquakes. Please America, let's move away from oil and petroleum/plastics.

  22. That's not exactly true. Norway allows oil companies to drill in return for 83% of the profit. I believe Exxon Mobil is the current contract holder. There's also several strict restrictions on how much they can drill, under what conditions and so forth.

  23. uhmm uhmm, this isn't ended well here in Venezuela. I recommend to increase their taxes, they are better on producing it.

  24. Andrew Yang understands the obvious dystopic future of automation. If gvt was going to be able to interfere with automation, they would have done so decades ago, but they know they can't interfere, because if they do, the nation that doesn't interfere gets to sell their products at a fraction of the price that those who interfere do. Regardless of the national politics, we are all 100% beholden to the international market. I will not buy American goods made by people (inferior to machines) when I can buy superior goods made by machines for 30% cheaper. The nations who try to hinder automation will cease to be relevant in global trade. I would have thought China making all the stuff in the world would prove that, but somehow it's not sinking in.

    Yang isn't a bad candidate because he's wrong about automation and the path of the future. He's a bad candidate because his "solutions" are garbage.

    I have no respect for anyone who thinks we can solve the problems of automation by bumping up our level of ludditism. The nations that stop automation in their nation forfeit absolutely all production of goods and then withers away into nothingness. It's like deliberately becoming the Soviet Union, only not being forced out, but rather opting out of the market cause robots will ruin the jobs… And then when your overpriced handcrafted goods sell to no one, all the jobs fail and the nation needs to offer stimulus packages to businesses so that they can automate and start generating profits again so that there is an economy to tax to get the nation running again. This is piss simple to understand.

    How this isn't obvious as fucking shit is BAFFLING to me. Anyone who talks about hindering automation, think about what would happen if auto manufacturers decided to not automate.. Hand crafted cars would be a whopping 0.02% of the market. Tops. What if the US decided to make computers by hand, would they be able to compete with those who did not? Obviously not. By stemming automation you literally make yourself 100% irrelevant until the wages of the workers are so low that you become competitive again. At which point your currency will have no worth what so ever, and everyone will live in absolute desperation in a nation whose infrastructure is crumbling to bits.

    You're going to have to come up with something better than that. Even taxing robots is a fucking laughable idea, cause the nations that do not tax the robots WINS THE WHOLE MOTHERFUCKING MARKET.

    There is ONE OPTION, and that is to accept automation and joblessness, and to make sure the bots work FOR US, not for the major corps. The gvt needs to produce bots that will obliterate the private sector, and then offer those who want jobs some sort of employment in some sector tasked with making the world better instead of wasting their best years shuffling papers around or doing other menial shit.

    Again, Yang is a shit candidate, but at least he understands technology. The fact that people don't take that part seriously, when the rest of the field is either old as fuck or clueless about tech, that's a fucking miiiiiiistake. Him being a shit candidate doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. He's 100% right about his dystopic corporate hellscape.

    Cyberpunk novellists have been warning us about this for many many decades, yet it seems we're just too fucking wrapped up in the status quo to see that they're actually making the most realistic fucking sci-fi shit there has ever been. That stuff is prophetic in a way that muggles will not understand until they need augments to do a job at a proficient level. "ohfuck, I'm an android!"

  25. Corporate interests have the resources to take your country into civil war before they concede thier power and relinquish control on national natural resources. Great idea, the entire energy sector should be nationalised. Capitalism is too strong… What do they call the CIA again ? Capitalisms Invisible Army

  26. Another argument in favour of nationalising natural resources (not just fuels, also anything that is mined) is that they are value taken from the ground, and once that value has been extracted, the land has sharply decreased in value. Not just because it has run out of the valuable resource that was being mined, but also because the land is likely to be in a shocking state afterward, requiring cleanup before the land can go back to having any value at all. Even if it is being returned to a wilderness state afterward, even that requires cleanup.

  27. One thing that I hate that's going on now is big business and billionaires taking more and more away from those who don't have what they have. Not only are they not satisfied with how much they're reaping from us, they actually own Congress and the President. Look at the actions of the GOP and the DNC… but reading comments here saying that natural resources should belong to "we the people" gets a bit complicated. So we let the Government take over oil… but then wait a second… timber is a natural resource, so let's have them take over all of the logging and mills… and corn and other crops… are you going to classify them as "natural resources"? Where would it end. True, the Government should monitor and regulate much that goes on like price gouging and speculation, but take the time to look at all of the consequences.

  28. The only thing I'd totally disagree with this caller on is Tesla the problem with that is not the subsidy it is the fact the idealisation of Elon Musk. He's called brilliant even though all of Tesla's technology was created by the government or engineers not him. It's bascially crates this myth around Tesla as this amazing company that will take over the markets even though it was the governemnt who not just caused that but the sales behind it will drop off now the government is not involved as who do you think made sure those Tesla models sold well.

  29. It's already pretty nationalized via subsidies. We should be taking those away and give them to renewable companies. If we want to survive climate change anyway.

  30. True story the oil Oligarchs arm dumb right wingers via the NRA to protect their oil interests via paramilitary struggle. Good luck comrades !

  31. I would agrue that we need to work on nationalizing the soon-to-be Green Energy industry. There's an example of how we could go about this in Germany where residents who's homes are fueled by solar panels can sell the excess energy supply to energy companies, which basically equates to a small form of nationalization, or even can contribute to a national UBI program. I like this idea and I think it's something that the U.S. should definitely be taking a close look at.

  32. Yes. Same oil and pipelines from different energy companies. If there was ever an industry that needed to be nationalized, it's energy.

  33. We should be pouring money into research for developing alternate energy.
    Just a fraction of the military budget could get us ahead in this market.

  34. Earthling poets, artists, musicians and human beings (hearts/love) prosper by filling needs and creating joy with their brilliance (love).

    That the alien counting corpses (vampires/ego/greed) get to prosper by sucking the joy out of life and devouring the planet with their ignorance (absence of love) aka. "greed" seems grossly unfair to the humans beings (hearts/love).

  35. Frankly we need to get off fossil fuels SHORT TERM. The horse and buggy was replaced overnight, so can the internal combustion engine

  36. Flip flopping with regards to UBI replacing social security. Firstly your average social security payment is in excess of 2000 a month where’s Yang would be cutting that in half. Secondly a 1000 a month isn’t really enough. We need to be talking in the ballpark of 2.5-3 k a month to make any sort of substantial difference in terms of a “freedom dividend “

  37. 3:10 … I know a crazy conspiracy theory vilifying the right because “I watched a documentary on it!”… that’s a summary of the attitude and education level of the left.

  38. Of course oil should be nationalised. It makes no sense to have 1 man steal all of our recources then sell them to us, sell them to our enemies, and btw if ever need be it will be us defending these resources. This should be true of any refining process, such as extracting metals and gas, and oil.

  39. Good idea.
    Haven’t we heard about nationalization of private industries before?
    Yes, one positive outcome of that nationalization has successfully solved the obesity problem in Venezuela!

  40. IF a natural resource is sold then the buyer should be charged (taxed) for the external (environmental) impact that exploitation yields. Price the externalities instead of subsidizing the development risk away from the companies so that they can maximize profit.

  41. Solar, hydro and wind power will never be profitable in the United States until we begin to manufacture our own solar panels, batteries, wind towers, blades, etc. instead of giving all the business to China. Once we manufacture our own equipment, just think – we could train and use American Workers to put it all in place. What a radical thought! I should get a patent!

  42. Oil should of been nationalized 50 years ago !!! ppl would of profited from the gains and would of had Medicare for all and be able to go to school without debt … NOW its to late we have to shut down OIL .. TO LATE !!

  43. In the early 20th century, the US Navy actually had oil fields reserved in case of war. Rockefeller “convinced” the government to sell them to him.

  44. You have to be careful thinking about this subject. Unlike in most countries (like Norway), the vast majority of onshore mineral rights in the US are held by individuals, while offshore, they are held by states. If you are talking about nationalizing mineral rights, it would never be practical politically, as it would be opposed at the State and individual level. If you are talking about Nationalizing all oil companies, of which there are many hundreds of public and private companies, then you are talking about taking property rights away from millions of shareholders and hundreds of private business people – also politically unpractical. If you are talking about just nationalizing the largest US companies without nationalizing all of them (presumably because that would be more practical politically), then it is hard to come up with a rationale for just choosing a few.

    In practice, and with some rare exceptions, national oil companies that report directly to governments are not very well run. This is because the choke point in conventional oil economics is that unless a company keeps drilling it shrinks – because by producing its oil it is depleting its asset base. The margin earned on its production has to pay for all of the unsuccessful exploration drilling its takes to find new oil (the easy oil has been found) both to replace the produced oil and to grow. National oil companies that report directly to governments tend to siphon that margin off into general revenue to use for political purposes (see Pemex(Mexico) and PDVSA (Venezuela)), leaving insufficient money to drill a lot of exploration wells. Also, it takes a lot of risk tolerance to drill exploration wells because most fail. When was the last time you saw a government entity full of employees willing to take organizational risks?

    So it sounds easy – just nationalize oil. But like most things, it is way more complicated under the hood.

  45. Yes, the answer is Yes, besides when another country has a nationalized oil system we go in and take it from them, voila…

  46. Using the term “corporate Democrats” would be more accurate rather than “moderate” or “centrist” since those terms are very relative and country-specific.

  47. When the last drop is pumped they will not pay to fix their area back to an uncompromised natural state. Walmart vacates a property to build a new one 3 miles away. The decay remains for all of us to take care of (socialism, just not with the profits)

  48. Shouldn't Andrew Yang be in jail for trying to buy people's votes for $1,000 a month? Subverting the election process for president should be at the Top of treasonous acts!

  49. It's okay to just hang up on folks, we don't mind. You got a 1 hour show and only so much time can go to one topic/person.

    Anyone who's ever worked on a phone for a living totally knows what's up with the call drops in these clips and such lmao we've all done it at one time or another.

  50. I think about 30-40% is a good amount enough resources to make good use of it while leaving enough resources for businesses to want to inavate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *