The Chavez solution....I guess I am a socialist.

[zeemike]

And here is my plan.
Nationalize all of the oil and gas in the US and order all of produced here to American refineries....if it is not enough for now we will economize and we will get buy.
Make the production of oil a big fat government run program hiring plenty of workers and emphasizing safety and good working conditions and pay them well....and where you once had one electrician on a rig hire a helper for him....make a whole lot of good paying jobs.
The oil produced would have no value other than the labor it took to produce it because it could not be sold on the open market....that would be law, it is our oil and we do not have to sell it to anyone.

And so the price of gas at the pump would reflect the labor and profit of the refinery and the labor it took to produce it in that big bloated government program and all of the money form oil would stay right here in the good old USA.

Yep by god I am a socialist because I see a solution that looks like it....but why the hell not....or maybe I am a communist because what I am suggesting is that oil as a resource is communally owned by us all...But to me it makes good sense.

[Catherina]

1. You are not alone n/t

[zeemike]

2. I know the socialist would approve

But I don't consider myself one because I think that we should use anything that works and reject all that does not....and not everything about socialism is attractive to me

[Billy Burnett]

3. Right. You do what works.

Just as you do in your family. Modify. Adapt. Create. Give and take. Make it work best for all parties.

Like they do in Cuba too.

[William Z. Foster]

41. no worry

This idea that we need to "be" things is silly anyway, as is the idea that politics is about "belief systems." Fight for the working class people and they will call you a commie no matter what you "be" or what you "believe."

Making politics into a matter of personal belief systems is a way to distract and confuse people, and making it into something that a person has to "be" is so that the same people trying to confuse us can make up lists of whom to arrest. We fight on anyway.

[TheKentuckian]

4. I sort of agree with your sentiment but the math in no way works

Even with a quantum leap, not just big improvement, we can't possibly produce enough oil to self maintain. We'd have to "get by" with somehow improving efficiency something like 1,500%

Keeping in mind that the vast majority of what we do have is in places I think we have to admit are very dangerous to extract from.

Chavez has the significant advantages of a lot more oil and way less demand.

There is no solution founded on oil and I'd strongly suspect that any privately dominated effort will have a shitload of gremlins in the works.

We need a comprehensive balls to the wall program. Nothing is more important once we stop the oil flood in the Gulf and stop and reverse the bleeding but we have to run not walk in a different direction and people need to get that most oil we use until we are off it is going to be foreign because that is the math not a policy.

[zeemike]

6. I am not convinced of that.

We have natural gas reserves that are very large and there are gas wells all over that are caped off to keep the price of natural gas high.
And we could do it if we had the will.

[TheKentuckian]

23. Yeah, that's a horse of a different color. I thought we were talking oil.

I certainly would put a burn off of the natural gas as a bridge fuel on the table.

Rock it out on the road to fusion.

I'm not sure it's a complete answer for even the mid-term but it could be used for some heavy lifting.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. Agreed, comrade. Resources belong to us, not corporations.

Why are for-profits allowed to rape our resources, leave us with pollution and destruction, and we have nothing to show for it.

[zeemike]

7. When we had a lot of it it did not matter much

Now it matters.

[WeDidIt]

8. Your solution would result in the worst economic disaster in human history. Billions would die. n/t

[zeemike]

10. Naw billionaires would not die.

They would just have to retire to their Mc Mansion in Dubai.

[WeDidIt]

13. You misunderstand, at least two billion people would die as a direct result of the solution

Oil is a fungible commodity. IT is also one commodity that the entire global economy is 100% reliant upon.

The United States consumes more than 25% of the oil produced in the world.

If you nationalized the oil produced by the oil companies within US borders and waters, a crisis would immediately occur in the global oil market. If the US pulled out of that market (which is what would happen under the solution outlined), the world's biggest producers would also have to pull out to protect their positions. They would have no other choice, thus the US would be lacking at least 75% of the oil required daily just to drive the US economy. Overnight the US economy, and thus the world economy, would collapse and an economic crisis would ensue.. This crisis would result in a crisis of transportation which means goods would not be transported.

And because goods would no longer be transported, rampant inflation would occur. Prices would increase at a logarithmic rate. Currency would become meaningless. Food would become the most valuable commodity in existence.

And at least one third of the world would die from lack of food. This would be the poorest one-third.

In fact, about the only people guaranteed to survive the horrors that would ensue would be the billionaires you hate so much. They're hard assets would keep them alive when combined with a force of people who would be willing to help them maintain their hard assets just to help insure they and their families would survive.

[zeemike]

15. No I was just being snaky.

I know what you said.
But I see it diferently....we are the biggest consumers of oil so we are the customers....they are the suppliers and depend on us for their wealth.
We don't have any idea how much oil is being pumped our of our country...I know most of the oil in Alaska went to Japan and the world market.
We also have vast amounts of untaped gas and a pipeline that goes everywhere in this country....and you can run a car on natural gas as easily as gasoline.
But I can be convinced....do you have any figures on how much oil is coming out of the Gulf? Alaska?
My guess is that no one really knows because it is none of our busness....the corporations have the right to privacy.

[WeDidIt]

21. This further demonstrates your naivte in fungible commodities, especially oil

Oil from the Gulf is still different from oil pumped out of Saudi Arabia which is different from oil obtained in say, Alaska. Oil from the Gulf will still make its way to Saudi Arabia because the chemical composition dictates some must be refined for certain chemicals needed for industry in Saudi Arabia.

North America holds only 16% of the total proven world oil reserves. This includes the reserves in Mexico and the lion's share of reserves in Canada.

Of the top seventeen nations holding proven oil reserves, Saudi Arabia comes in first with 21.4% and a reserve life of 72 years. Canada is second with 14.4% and a reserve life of 149 years.

The United States is number 12 with ~1.7% of the proven reserves in the world and a reserve life of just 8 YEARS.

The world dies under your solution. There is no other way to describe it. Within a decade after your solution is implemented, at least half the current world population will be wiped out in the calamity caused by such foolishness.

[zeemike]

26. Or you being naive and just believing what you are told.

I went through the crisis in the 70s with oil and had some experiences that made me question it all.
During the oil shortages of that time I was working at a big plant near Pensacola Fla and we fired our boilers on natural gas....during the shortage we shut down for a weak to convert our boilers to burn oil and there after tanker truck loads of oil came through the gates every day.....we were told that there was a shortage of natural gas...which was a lie....I told this to a sea captain that plied the gulf waters and he said they had tankers of oil anchored out being paid to sit there because the tanks were all full.....later that same captain said that the oil they were pumping into that hole in Louisiana they call the strategic oil reserves was of the lowest quality but they were getting top price for it.
So No I don't buy it and I see nothing in the way things are today to change my mind.

[WeDidIt]

28. There are HUGE differences between now and the 70's

I lived through that crisis, too. We produced far more of the world's oil at that time and consumed far less than we do today.

you're trying to compare apples to skyscrapers here.

Your plan murders a third of the world within a few months and at least half the world in a decade.

[Catherina]

33. "at least two billion people would die as a direct result of the solution"

The hyperbole is amusing.

[WeDidIt]

34. Once transportation all but ceases, most of the world has insufficient food available

That is an inescapable fact and would indeed mean at least one third of the world would die within two months of the US pulling out of the global oil market.

No hyperbole at all. If anything, I am very conservative in my estimates as to the number of deaths due to starvation. The number of deaths in the first two months could easily be double that figure.

[William Z. Foster]

40. this is simply not true

Those arguing against any interference with the oil companies - no idea why anyone would take that position - sooner or later play the starvation card.

It is false that food production depends upon oil.

[WeDidIt]

45. That's a ridiculous statement

Food production is 100% dependent upon oil.

Furthermore, food transportation is 100% dependent upon oil.

It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

[William Z. Foster]

50. no, it is not

In fact, the opposite may well be true. Right now where I am we are experiencing massive crop failure from global warming, for example. Domestic growers are also being driven under by cheap imports, thanks to cheap oil, often grown in places that are not adequately feeding their own populations.

Yes, food transportation is dependent upon cheap oil. I said food production is not dependent upon oil, didn't I? And as far as transportation goers, whom does it serve to be shipping food all over the place? Mostly the speculators and investors, the hoarders and those creating artificial scarcities to drive up prices.

The transportation issue is going to require massive social change in any case. We have never had a population so divorced from their source of food as we do in this country right now, with most people 3-4 generations removed from the farm and ignorant about food on a very profound level.

Of course we need to rebuild public transportation, of course we need to support the public agricultural infrastructure and rebuild it, of course we need to restore regional food systems and diversified small farms so that we are not mono-cropping and shipping food such long distances, of course we need to end suburban sprawl. All of those are a product of massive profiteering by a few operating as parasites on the food system. Cheap oil fuels all of that, and it is causing - not preventing - mass starvation. That has to end.

Oil use on the farm allowed 90% of the people to leave the farm. Oil supports the suburban lifestyle, not farming. More labor and more acreage would be required to farm without oil. That could be accomplished in ten years with a public commitment to it. It is going to happen sooner or later in any case, because the present model is not sustainable and is doing far too much damage,

I have much to say on this subject, so we can go as long as you like on it. I welcome the opportunity.

[Vidar]

37. That's why you nationalize their assets too, after jailing or hanging them.

[WeDidIt]

48. You cannot nationalize the assets of a global corporation

and no oil company's assets held in the US will be nearly enough.

The US has less than 1.7% of the world's oil reserves while using 25% of the world's oil production. It is impossible for the US to pull out of the global oil market and not cause a meltdown of the global economy.

[Cleita]

19. Yeah, they are dying like flies in Venezuela, Brazil, Norway and other

places this has been tried. :sarcasm:

[WeDidIt]

22. All of those nations still participate in the global oil marketplace

The solution described by the OP pulls the US out of that market completely.

I would further note that Venezuela produces many times more oil than it consumes while the US consumes more than 150 times as much oil as it produces.

[Cleita]

24. You would have to participate in the global markets to sell your product

at the best price. That has nothing to do with the company being owned by the people. The resource would be pumped or mined by the nation and sold on the open market. The proceeds then go into the treasury for specific reasons like education and health care. Read about Codelco in Chile a copper mine. It's a mine that was owned by Americans and nationalized. It has unionized labor and the copper is sold on the open market. There are private mining interests in Chile but Codelco sets the standards of safety and labor relations that the other mines have to meet to be competitive. Or read about Venezuela or Brazil.

[Codeine]

25. Yes, but that wasn't what the OP suggested.

We're not blasting the basic tenets of national oil companies, but rather the weird vision in the OP, which was whacky.

[Cleita]

55. He missed the global market part.

But why discourage thinking in a better direction? He will refine his thoughts if we help him along instead of criticize him into silence.

[WeDidIt]

27. Right,... but what you describe is not what the Op describes

The OP nationalizes the oil industry and pulls out of the global market. The US then is forced to only consume what it can produce.

That's a significant difference.

[zeemike]

29. But if we consume more than we produce we are the market.

And if that is true how does it make sense for us to ship oil produced here to Japan?
Why don't we use it here and let Japan get it form the Saudis

[WeDidIt]

30. Because light sweet crude is different, chemically, from heavy sour crude

price points are different, too, and production of different distillants varies with the grade of crude, not to mention constituents vary across all the different grades. The amount of sulfur combined with the density describes, for instance, the amount of asphaltenes in the crude. The various constituent have different uses. The overall price of a crude grade is usually determined by the amount of fuel that can be refined, but other factors come into play as well.

[WeDidIt]

31. One other point, Venezuelan Crude is heavy sour.

Sour crude has a high sulfur content which is highly undesirable for refiners.

Heavy crude has a high density which makes it more difficult to refine.

Heavy Sour crude is shit. Nobody likes it. It's all China has domestically and so they go shopping for light sweet crude.

Light Sweet crude has a low sulfur content and a lower density which means lots of petrol, lots of other fuels, fewer asphaltenes, and it's a dream to refine.

Light Sweet Crude is the Dom Perignon of crude oil whereas Heavy Sour crude is the Two Buck Chuck of crude oil.

[Nye Bevan]

9. How would you raise the money?

You would need to buy out all of the shareholders of the oil companies, which would cost billions. After all, you can't just confiscate these companies, due to the Takings Clause of the Constitution.

And who would you hire to run these companies? I imagine the takeover would trigger millions of dollars of golden parachutes for the current executives. I guess you could hire the same guys back again to run their old companies. You would probably have to pay them more money as they wouldn't need the cash so much after getting their golden parachutes.

[zeemike]

11. No no not the companies the oil.

And the production of it.
They could go elsewhere and drill all they wanted....or contract out to the government.
But it would pay for itself because we consume the products from oil....but instead of it going to a few rich people in other countries it would go as wages for the labor it took to bring it to market.

[greytdemocrat]

12. It's cute

When the kiddies post here. It really is.

This isn't an attack but your post smacks of naivete. Rock on dude.

[Imajika]

14. This is one of the worst ideas I've read here lately...

Honestly, are you just dreaming random stuff up and posting it without thinking?

"if it is not enough for now we will economize and we will get buy."

It is not even remotely close to enough (unless your proposing new drilling on a massive scale), so we wouldn't get by. We would STILL need to buy most of our oil from abroad, only under your plan our domestic production would be more inefficient and less productive. Venezuela is a great example of what NOT to do.

"But to me it makes good sense."

See, to me it sounds utterly foolish.

"or maybe I am a communist because what I am suggesting is that oil as a resource is communally owned by us all"

Just FYI, incase your really thinking of becoming a communist - that ideology has failed everywhere it has ever been tried. Communism never, ever works.

[zeemike]

16. I would suggest to you that no ism is working or ever has.

Because they are ism's.
And we don't know how much we have because we don't control it.
But if you have that data let me know, I would like to see it.
For instance do you know how many gas wells are caped and taken out of production?
Do you know how much oil comes from the thousands of wells in the gulf right now?

[Cleita]

18. Actually, it's an excellent one like single payer health care, but

since it would reduce the robber barons to just petty thieves everyone runs around calling it a communist plot. And what the OP is suggesting isn't communism although that is what he called it. What he is suggesting is democratic ownership of our resources by the people and for the people.

[fascisthunter]

36. of course you think so...

you dislike the left and the left's principles on almost every issue.

[Imajika]

39. No...

"you dislike the left and the left's principles on almost every issue."

I just don't like pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

I support center-left policies. I support a mixed economy, universal health care and far more progressive taxation than we have now targeting the actual take home pay of the highest income earners (rather than just a bunch of corporate taxes that are passed on to the consumer). Most importantly I support the idea of an active government leveling the playing field and making sure the market is guided by rules we perfect over time.

What I don't support is the idea of abolishing markets in favor of command and control central planning, Marxist blather, goofballs like Chavez, nationalizing things willy-nilly to make ourselves feel good, etc. When I see that fantasy land stuff I argue against it because it's garbage that's proven a failure everywhere it has every been tried.

[bvar22]

42. Communism never, ever works

Capitalism is not doing such a good job either,
or did you miss the Wall Street Bailouts.

Things have gone steeply downhill since St Ronnie started the movement to unrestrained Capitalism and the Democratic Party "Centrist" leadership picked up his "Free Markets/Deregulation" banner.
STEEPLY downhill.

I'll let you in on a secret:
There is NO giant Invisible Hand of the Free Market.
The RICH made that shit up and sold it to a gullible America using their bought mouthpieces in BOTH Political Parties.

[William Z. Foster]

44. pretty strong reactions

What is wrong with the post?

Of course that sort of thinking could spread and lead to all sorts of changes couldn't it? Best to ridicule it at the outset, stamp out any flickering embers.

The OP doesn't have a comprehensive plan, and is not an expert (and does not claim to be) but so what?

Politics is not something a person can "be" nor is it a belief system. Trying to make politics into personal belief systems and identities is just a way to confuse and divide people.

[Cleita]

17. I've been saying this for years.

:thumbsup:

But don't stop at oil. We need nationalize all extraction industries and that means coal, minerals, metals, lumber and water. Yes, the big industrial giant corporations are plotting to get our water.

[Codeine]

20. I'm a socialist, and I think your idea is terribly naive

and bespeaks an appalling lack of education regarding resource use, technology, and global economics. Can nationalizing oil work? Absolutely. In the way you've proposed? OMG no, a thousand times no.

[Cleita]

32. It's an idea. If he were the professor, then he could do what you ask.

If that were the case, he wouldn't be making a post on a message board. \x(/

[William Z. Foster]

53. what sort of Socialist is that?

What sort of Socialist ridicules fellow working class people for their "appalling lack of education regarding resource use, technology, and global economics?" A pretty aristocratic and gentrified sort of Socialism that would be.

How does one "be" a Socialist anyway? Just declare oneself one? Profess certain beliefs? if so, it is meaningless since politics is not about the label one places on oneself nor about beliefs. It is about power and economics, and upon which side a person stands in the ongoing struggle.

Promoting "brand Socialism" and Socialist "belief systems" is promoting ideas that are inherently ruling class ideas, since it is the ruling class that benefits by seeing politics as a matter of personal identity or personal belief systems, and it is those with leisure and access to resources who can afford the luxury of indulging in such past times.

You can change the lyrics, but when the tune and the dance steps are the same nothing has really changed. Using "I am a Socialist" in order to give strength to an argument that is bashing down someone's tentative foray into considering the application of Socialist programs is self-contradictory and reactionary.

[fascisthunter]

35. I Love how Chavez posts bring out the right wing cock roaches

[Codeine]

38. This is not a Chavez post.

This is a poster who isn't even literate in regards to the policy he expounds. Nationalizing oil? No problem. The weird-ass idea this cat has suggested? Pure whackadoodlism. Chavez sells his oil on the market. The OP doesn't even want to do that.

[bvar22]

43. Since we consume way more than we produce,

your "Chavez sells his on the market" comment is absurd.

[William Z. Foster]

52. obviously

Obviously there would need to be a transition period. There would no doubt be a period of time where we were still buying imported oil. But the OP suggests a new direction, and the glimpse of that new direction should be leading us to explore possibilities and enjoy a breath of fresh air and renewed creativity and hope.

Why is it that people who are selling and defending the powerful and the existing conditions and social arrangements (very often the same people) always take a "too bad, this is reality, and you don't have to like it but you may as well accept it" line? Is that all they have? Whipping and threatening people to crawl back into the same dark smelly cave and shut up?

Dream on, people. Come up with ideas. Talk. There are no ideas that could be more wackadoodle than the ones that are dictating our present course.

[William Z. Foster]

46. K and R

I can tell by the over-the-top reactions that you are on the right track.

Of course you don't have it all figured out. But you are thinking about it and initiating a discussion that some here want desperately to prevent.

Good work, well done, and don't let the attackers discourage you. That is all they can do - confuse, distract, scare and discourage people.

[WeDidIt]

49. The only thing over the top is the insane idea presented in the OP

The OP wants to kill at least one third of the people on the planet.

That's clear.

[William Z. Foster]

51. you haven't persuaded me

I am open to hearing an argument that is not merely out of hand dismissal and ridicule.

You lost credibility with me when you finally named a specific - that people will starve without oil. That is the usual fear tactic used against anyone who challenges the power and control over us by the oil corporations.

[WeDidIt]

54. That's only because you have no fucking clue how the crude oil market works. n/t

[William Z. Foster]

56. does anybody?

I suppose we are to believe that there are some high priests of finance somewhere who "understand how markets work." Greenspan has pretty much thrown in the towel and cried uncle at this point. Is there an invisible hand involved in this by any chance?

I well know "how markets work" - as Wall Street would have us think of markets. The producers and the consumers get screwed and a few people make massive killings, and the Hell with the cost in human suffering and environmental destruction. THAT is "how markets work."

[WeDidIt]

57. Yes, many people know how the crude market works

That's why a crude market exists and companies profit from it.

And your tone on this subject now makes two subjects where it is impossible for you and I to have a rational discussion.

I will not be baited.

[William Z. Foster]

58. up to you

I am nit trying to bait you, but feel free to ignore me.

[Mojeoux]

47. TAX Them! They have sweetheart Tax deals. n/t

[BanTheGOP]

59. We need to NATIONALIZE the energy industry...NOW!

We need to nationalize all aspects of energy in this country. Not just for the productive workers who should get a mandated wage, but to prevent profits from entering the pockets of the republican party-sponsored oil barons, as well as direct energy solutions to prevent the destruction of the planet.

The Louisiana oil rig is the culmination of such atrocities: The transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, the need to get further profits by cutting costs in safety measures ala Halliburton, and of course, the utter destruction of the environment in the Gulf that will destroy many species and the livelihood of many progressive citizens in the area.

Read my narrative here, along with recommendations:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BanTheGOP/73