If Iraqi oil belongs to 'the people'- why don't WE 'own' Us oil?

[Bluerthanblue]

I hear * talk about using the oil in Iraq for the 'good of the people' of Iraq- and to be "good stewards" of 'THIER' oil- How about us? Do the oil reserves in the US belong to 'we the people'?
If so, where are our 'dividend' checks?

Maybe I'm just exposing my stupidity/ignorance- but this doesn't make any sense to me-

[Thickasabrick]

1. We would rather privatize our resources as opposed to nationalizing

them (Venezuela, Bolivia). The oil companies and our politicians are joined at the hip.....nationalization would never happen.

[RufusEarl]

2. Well there you go making sense,

but hey we're in america and we all know that america's business is business. Here's something that pisses me off, we can't even get the oil companies to pay for the oil they get from public lands. so i suspect a dividend check is out of the question.:sarcasm:

[TX-RAT]

9. Question

Since when have oil company's not payed royalties on state of federally held minerals?

[RufusEarl]

32. Oil Companies and royalties!

Sorry it took so long to get back with you, but i found this with a quick google search. Hope it answers your question, it's a PDF file but it get to the question at hand.

http://www.foe.org/new/releases/March2006/OilRoyaltyFactSheet.pdf

[TX-RAT]

33. 12 to 16 percent royalties paid to state and fed

About the same paid to private land owners. 12.5% or 1/8th whichever you prefer. Really don't see a problem there.

[RufusEarl]

34. Oil company royalties

Well perhaps you're comfortable with the oil companies these days, but what i've been reading tell me that the oil companies in this country owes the citizens of the USofA some cash.

The big five or six oil companies have been getting wind fall breaks in taxes a not paying royalties IMHO, and i for one just don't care or greed.

Here's a story about it from the Dallas paper.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/dmn/stories/012306dnnatusgas.87ab22b.html

[The2ndWheel]

3. It's either the state or the corporation

"The people" don't own jack.

[LouisianaLiberal]

4. Very good point. But he doesn't mean it.

One of the goals in Iraq was to "privatize" everything that could be "privatized." Parentheses added because the word has nothing to do with the economic competition they are so fond of touting; its all about the well-concealed neo-liberal agenda.

[Jose Diablo]

5. Gosh, 'good of the people'

What's next, will he suggest 'socialism'?

Or....<gasp>, dirt-bag pinko commie?

Where does Bu$h get all these radical ideas about 'ownership'?

The 'controllers' need to give him a time-out, to think through what he is saying. We will know if they have done their jobs, we'll see junior with a 'new' black-eye, or maybe a fat-lip. We can take comfort knowing the real 'owners' of America will not allow those pushing 'good of the people' stuff get any traction.

[cantstandbush]

6. Don't you wish a real journalist had the nerve to ask Bush that? nt

[Bluerthanblue]

13. yeah, I sure do, but what I really

wish is that some journalist would ask him a question, and not let him dodge giving a direct
honest answer.
He throws so many words and 'catch phrases' around, that people get bored and stop listening, or he bullies the questioner to distract from what he doesn't want to have to face up to-

I wish the people would DEMAND he be the 'straight-talker' he likes to pretend he is- but to quote the man who said, immigrants should have to learn to master english.... "an't gon happen".

A graduate of an Ivy league institution - Yale University, and this is the best he can do?????

And the US is ok with this????-

[cantstandbush]

31. Ahhhh... it's the "affirmative action of the wealthy." n/t

[Nederland]

7. Because the US is a "capitalist" country

...and in capitalist countries, most property is held in private hands--as it should be.

[Bluerthanblue]

11. well, given that logic, couldn't it

have been argued that Saddam's hands were 'private' hands?

What is capitalism actually? Seems to me, it is merely having more than one 'dictator'-
sort of a cabal of 'dictators'- the people are at the mercy of a few 'powerful' -'inhuman' (corporate) Despots.

[TX-RAT]

15. If he had legal ownership of the mineral rights.

It could very well be private.

[Bluerthanblue]

16. seems strange to me,

that we (at least here in new england) ensure the 'rights' of the public to access to all waterways- lakes, oceans, rivers- with the caviat that "the beaches, rivers, and lakes belong to ALL of us"- yet, someone could 'own land' and have someone come in an 'purchase' the 'mineral rights' to what lies beneath the ground on which you stand?

"OWNERSHIP" society- and then you get into the issue of "Emeniant Domain" and the 'good of the people' issues. Somehow, when big money and corporate greed are involved, what is 'good' for the 'little people' doesn't matter squat anymore.

Reminds me of the clearances in the Highlands of Scotland- Burn the homes, were gonna run sheep now.

[Nederland]

17. Yes

It could be argued that it was in 'private' hands under Saddam. However, Saddam did not acquire the private rights to that oil in a fair and democratic way--he just took it when he took power in a coup. Oil companies in the US that own their own oil have acquired it in a democratic and fair way.

Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production is held in private hands. Socialism is an economic system where the means of production is held by the government.

[Bluerthanblue]

22. US oil companies

have 'acquired' private rights to the oil which exists here in a 'fair and democratic way'?

Just like Halliburton is the reciepient of countless government no-bid contracts, even in the face of their ineptitude, dishonest business practices, record of poor quality work and follow through- as well as citing them for overbilling, and punishing them with fines for work they've done for our 'government'?? (If I hire someone who screws me over repeatedly, I'm not only a fool, I am enabling someone to stay in 'bad' business, and to a degree complicit in the screwing)

These questions are heavy duty sarcasm- I have lost confidince, and trust in 'the goodness' of the government- regardless of which political party happens to be in power at the time. We are being lied to, and manipulated for the benefit of 'the few'- The "Common man" needs to question, and speak out- and demand accountability. If we don't, we can't blame anyone but ourselves for the government we are imprisoned by, and sacrifice our children to.

[Nederland]

26. Halliburton ishas nothing to do with it

Yes, the Halliburton contracts are unfair. They are unfair precisely because they occurred in a manner completely the opposite of how oil transaction are conducted. Oil transactions occur in an open market with multiple suppliers and multiple buyers. It is the complete opposite of the no-bid contract situation you are frustrated with. And, if you have lost confidence in the 'goddness' of government, have government control US oil reserves (as you have implied) is probably a really bad idea...

[gaspee]

23. Huh?

Oil companies in the US that own their own oil have acquired it in a democratic and fair way.



Do you really believe that? Seriously? Do you know anything about American history? Sheesh. And faux news is fair and balanced, right?

Start with the Rockerfellers and Standard Oil. Democratic and fair my ass.

With the concentration of wealth that started during the guilded age, the families that control the major wealth and resources in this country do so only because they are the progeny of the most ruthless and corrupt capitalists of previous centuries.

If you think that's fair... ie - the most ruthless and willing to cross lines make millions of the rest of us, then that's your political philosophy. It's not mine.

[Nederland]

25. I guess it depends on what you think is fair

I think that private transactions conducted by uncoerced actors in a free marketplace are fair by definition. Evidently you disagree.

[coalition_unwilling]

28. What is capitalism actually, you ask. I'd say it's an economic

system built upon a foundation of exploitation -- exploitation of natural resources, exploitation of labor -- for private gain. "Exploitation" is a perjorative, I admit, but I'm not sure what else a system where CEO's now earn 400 times what the average worker earns and where the marginal tax rate on the hyper-wealthy is close to, if not below, the average worker's tax rate.

[Nederland]

35. Yes

As it's been said:

In Capitalism man exploits man. In Communism the reverse is true.

[coalition_unwilling]

38. Your reply is a bit cryptic, but I assume you're suggesting

that exploitation will occur in both a capitalist and a socialist economy. I would agree with you to the extent that, in any economic system, someone through his or her labor will create surplus value and that surplus value will be exploited by others. The question is how that surplus value will be exploited and who will exploit it and\or benefit from its exploitation. In a system where the means of production and natural resources are publicly owned and operated (the nominal subject of the OP), surplus value(s) will be more evenly allocated.

In other words, exploitation will occur in both capitalist and socialist economies. But I would argue that social justice is more attainable under a socialist economy than a capitalist one, if by "social justice" one means "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[Nederland]

39. Exploitation?

How exactly does exploitation occur unless one party is coerced?

As I mentioned in the above post, a fair implementation of capitalism requires that all transactions take place between two un-coerced actors in a free market. I see very little evidence of coercion in the US economy. In the few instances that do exist of people being forced to spend money or perform labor without a choice in the matter, the government is usual the person doing the coercing.

[coalition_unwilling]

42. To steal a line from Clinton, I guess it depends on

the meaning of "coercion" (and the meaning of "exploitation"). A broader reading of "exploitation" than your narrower one would go something like this:

Worker A makes an annual $35,000 value-added contribution to Product X or Service Y. Worker A's annual salary and benefits are only $30,000. That leaves $5,000 of profit for exploitation by some entity. (In capitalism, that entity is typically share-holders or business owners; in socialist economies, that entity of exploitation is typically the state or some organ thereof.)

Now it is true that Worker A was not coerced, if by "coerced," you mean that someone held a gun to his or her head. But he or she was "coerced," if by "coerced" one means that Worker A or his or her spouse required expensive medical treatments unobtainable elsewhere than through employer-provided health benefits.

[Nederland]

44. Unlikely scenario

If a worker produces something worth 35k, why in the world would he sell it for 30k? Somewhere along the line that worker has agreed, without coercion, to work for a given wage. If he is in fact adding 35k in value and only getting 30k in return for his labor, s/he is just stupid. And despite how common stupid actions are, you can't exactly pass a law that protects people from doing stupid things.

[Cleita]

19. Yes, but a large portion of our property is held in the federal

government in national forests, parks, dams and waterways. Yet, extraction industry private companies and ranchers are allowed to exploit these assets for thier own profit. Even if contracted to private companies they should be paying to mine or lumber, or graze at today's rates not the pittance they give the government by some agreement made back in the nineteenth century.

[Bluerthanblue]

24. I agree- good point ! eom

[Nederland]

27. Good point

As a Capitalist, I disagree with the current government practive of leasing land for grazing, mineral extraction, etc. at below market rates. I believe that the government should let the highest bidder access to the land and let the market set the price.

[TX-RAT]

29. the pittance they give the government

How much do the feds receive in royalties on oil compared to private land owner? Around here it's 1/8th

[zippy890]

8. are Iraq's oil companies nationalized?

interesting question here - and important.

Who, or what 'entities' actually own the Iraq oil reserves and related infrastructure?

?????

[TX-RAT]

10. They may be, good question.

[Zeebo]

30. The official propaganda will say the Iraq - Gov't (People), Truth...

The multi-national oil companies, a.k.a US Gov't, eventually will have the "real" control/ownership.

Alot more here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#conclusion


Snipet
"A CONTRACTUAL RIP-OFF

The debate over oil “privatisation” in Iraq has often been misleading due to the technical nature of the term, which refers to legal ownership of oil reserves. This has allowed governments and companies to deny that “privatisation” is taking place. Meanwhile, important practical questions, of public versus private control over oil development and revenues, have not been addressed.

The development model being promoted in Iraq, and supported by key figures in the Oil Ministry, is based on contracts known as production sharing agreements (PSAs), which have existed in the oil industry since the late 1960s. Oil experts agree that their purpose is largely political: technically they keep legal ownership of oil reserves in state hands (3), while practically delivering oil companies the same results as the concession agreements they replaced.

Running to hundreds of pages of complex legal and financial language and generally subject to commercial confidentiality provisions, PSAs are effectively immune from public scrutiny and lock governments into economic terms that cannot be altered for decades.

In Iraq’s case, these contracts could be signed while the government is new and weak, the security situation dire, and the country still under military occupation. As such the terms are likely to be highly unfavourable, but could persist for up to 40 years.

Furthermore, PSAs generally exempt foreign oil companies from any new laws that might affect their profits. And the contracts often stipulate that disputes are heard not in the country’s own courts but in international investment tribunals, which make their decisions on commercial grounds and do not consider the national interest or other national laws. Iraq could be surrendering its democracy as soon as it achieves it."

[Avalux]

12. Bush was channeling Chavez this morning, lol.

That's what Chavez has done; used Venezuelan oil to help the people. We should be so lucky here, eh? Anyone beginning to get jealous that Bush likes Iraqis better than Americans? ;)

[Bluerthanblue]

14. well, I actually used to

resent that * intended to set up 'good schools' and 'healthcare' for all Iraqi people, while we here at home can go rot, but then I caught myself.... it is all talk- it is all PR- he is claiming we've brought 'freedom' to them- and we have- at least to the ten's or hundreds of thousands of citizens who have been liberated from the struggle to survive life in this world-

He talks a lot. His delivery is disasterous.

}(

[Cleita]

18. I think a lot of our assets, those that come from the ground,

should be nationalized and the profits used to run our government and our government's social programs. This would in effect cut taxes without cutting needed services.

However, those who believe in laissez faire style capitalism won't agree. They prefer profits to be distributed in the stock market to the rich instead of supporting education, health care and public infrastructure.

All those who engage in pillaging our forests and our grazing lands in our federal lands, as well as our minerals, ores, coal, petroleum and natural gas would rather that it lined the pocket of billionaires instead of investing in our future as a nation.

[gaspee]

21. The sacred cow

Of capitalism. Even here on DU, capitalism is a sacred cow. Even suggesting that the natural resources should be in public hands is enough to get you a whippin'

We didn't kill no indians to live in communes like they did! Jokes on them injuns who didn't think people could own land, huh!

I'm a socialist and proud to be one.

Wish I was Swedish, but I wasn't lucky enough to be born there. Sigh.

[NNN0LHI]

20. Yea we are stealing the Iraqis oil to help them. Wink, wink

I imagine some Americans believe that. But I doubt very many Iraqis believe it.

The Iraqis know the USA is using their oil profits to hire Blackwater mercenaries to keep them at bay while we plunder their country.

Thats the reason they are throwing the IEDs at our soldiers instead of flowers.

Our media knows this too but they won't say anything. Quick look over there at them Mexicans.

Don

[tjwash]

36. Because that would be creeping socialism, and that's bad...

...and it's bad because, well, just because that's what we have been told all of our lives by the people that have the money and the wealth to control the mass media.

Socialism and sharing--BAD, Greed and all real wealth in the hands of a select few-GOOD.

You see now?

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. We sell our oil to foreign countries, ie Japan, ie the Alaskan pipeline

because it's cheaper to sell to Japan then to ship it to the lower 48........:wtf: :crazy: Or we hoard it for our Oil Wars. :banghead:

[sandnsea]

40. Royalties go back to the state fund

In the lower 48, various mining, logging, oil and other royalties go back to state or county government. Not near as much as what it should be though. Some of it goes into the federal coffers too, but I don't know whether the royalties offset the subsidies and tax cuts or not. Don't forget Alaskan oil royalties go to the people. That's one reason SOME Alaskans support any and all drilling.

[Clarkie1]

41. Simple: We don't sell our oil abroad, we buy it. n/t

[ComerPerro]

43. Because corporations are people too

of course, if they were people, most of them would be in jail...