Socialize Offshore Oil?

[Sunstone]

This raises the question, how do you get effective regulations when the regulating body (ie, government) completely owns that which is regulated? It's like putting a fox in charge of chicken coop security. Moreover, the federal government cannot even be sued for losses without their permission (other than limited situations under the Federal Tort Claims Act). This sounds more likely to result in mischief than private ownership with effective regulation & liability in tort.

That's all speculation because socialized drilling and exploration works for Norway. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Sunstone]

So it would be easier to go against that army of lobbyist when attempting to fully remove the oil companies from off-shore drilling, than it would be to create regulation?

Good point. It's going to be tough either way.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... but I think the right wingers might would go stark raving mad

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I believe the government should at least oversee the drilling of offshore oil. They already have OSHA for job safety, so why not a new type of OSHA for oil drilling?

You mean like MSHA? The group that is tasked with overseeing the safety of the mining industry?

Let's keep in mind that as long as corporations have direct input into government (which they do - in spades), oversight is only as strong as the corruption for that industry allows it to be.

 

[Mathematician]

The Norwegian and Singaporean model works amazingly well: the government owns a large share in private companies, and then enacts changes internally on the boards while simultaneously regulating their activity. The state does not "own" everything outright.

 

[KatNotKathy]

Socialize everything.

 

[Revoltingest]

The difference is that the Government has no financial interest in skipping over important safety regulation to save money, because the Government does not need to operate the oil platforms for financial gain.

I disagree. There will be a demand for fuel. The government will see it as a revenue source, but safe practices cost money, creating a potential for abuse. Consider other government enterprises, such as education. I once had a self storage manager, whom I fired for drug issues, being lazy, dishonest, & just too dumb to do the job. He also made unwanted advances towards some female tenants. He's now a tenured math teacher at a local high school....fortunately, one which my kids didn't attend. The school board doesn't hire investigators to vet new hires because of the cost. No one called me or his former employer for a reference. (This loser came with the property when I bought it.) I can't afford not to hire a private investigator. My workers have keys & alarm codes to other peoples' homes & businesses, & I'd be liable for their crimes. But government can more easily insulate itself against liability, so they just don't face strong consequences of messing up.
Another example: How safe were Soviet nuclear reactors? They would supposedly have no profit motive, yet they skimped on safety measures. Every form of government must allocate resources, be they capitalist or communist. The reds just don't call it "profit".

It's all a matter of what is the most efficient way to achieve the most reasonable
level of safety. Making the government the owner just doesn't seem best to me.

 

[Darkness]

I disagree. There will be a demand for fuel. The government will see it as a revenue source, but safe practices cost money, creating a potential for abuse. Consider other government enterprises, such as education. I once had a self storage manager, whom I fired for drug issues, being lazy, dishonest, & just too dumb to do the job. He also made unwanted advances towards some female tenants. He's now a tenured math teacher at a local high school....fortunately, one which my kids didn't attend. The school board doesn't hire investigators to vet new hires because of the cost. No one called me or his former employer for a reference. (This loser came with the property when I bought it.) I can't afford not to hire a private investigator. My workers have keys & alarm codes to other peoples' homes & businesses, & I'd be liable for their crimes. But government can more easily insulate itself against liability, so they just don't face strong consequences of messing up.
Another example: How safe were Soviet nuclear reactors? They would supposedly have no profit motive, yet they skimped on safety measures. Every form of government must allocate resources, be they capitalist or communist. The reds just don't call it "profit".

It's all a matter of what is the most efficient way to achieve the most reasonable
level of safety. Making the government the owner just doesn't seem best to me.

That is a fair assertation. I did not mean to imply that all Government-run corporations will be good. For example, a number of decades ago Argentina had a propped up public sector that was extremely inefficient at producing for the civilian population. Other nations, such as France, have managed to employ nationalised corportations to the benefit of the public. After the Second World War, French President Vincent Auriol utilized nationalisation to rebuild the wartorn country.

One of the problems we have in American political discourse is that we have framed the arguement in such a way that it is always Big Government vs. Small Government. Well, as a Social Democrat, I am an advocate of a strong and vibrant central government, but that does not mean I cannot push for reforms to cut government waste, roll back the bureaucracy in certain areas and turn certain economic sectors over to private business when the government drops the ball.

 

[Wandered Off]

Maybe we should socialize to the extent we socialize cleanup expenses and other economic mitigation.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is a fair assertation. I did not mean to imply that all Government-run corporations will be good. For example, a number of decades ago Argentina had a propped up public sector that was extremely inefficient at producing for the civilian population. Other nations, such as France, have managed to employ nationalised corportations to the benefit of the public. After the Second World War, French President Vincent Auriol utilized nationalisation to rebuild the wartorn country.

France embodies both the good & the bad. Their regulation of nuclear power plants is more efficient than the US primarily because they have a standardized design. But their socialism also puts them at risk for labor strikes on a huge scale, which we regularly see. It's also a pretty expensive place to live.

One of the problems we have in American political discourse is that we have framed the arguement in such a way that it is always Big Government vs. Small Government. Well, as a Social Democrat, I am an advocate of a strong and vibrant central government, but that does not mean I cannot push for reforms to cut government waste, roll back the bureaucracy in certain areas and turn certain economic sectors over to private business when the government drops the ball.

Generally, everyone opposes government waste & corruption. Every Democrat I know claims to be a fiscal conservative, even while advocating for higher taxes & more spending. They incorrectly self-identify as such because they want the waste problem fixed & believe that can be done, all while increasing the size of government. Real fiscal conservativism is about minimal spending.
As a recovering engineer, I view government & the private sector as a control system - waste is inherent, but some systems are more prone to it than others. Any "reform" which doesn't improve the system incentives will have only temporary effect at best. The goal should be to design a system with incentives for efficiency & ethical behavior. The best results take advantage of a private company's superior adaptability, flexibility & efficiency to provide products & services. Government's role should be to provide a climate allowing competition & innovation, with protection of civil & economic liberties (in which I'd include a clean environment).
Example: My city is one of the few with a housing code. (Let's ignore my objections to it for the moment.) It establishes standards which landlords must meet. The city also owns & runs housing, but they are far more costly per tenant & the quality is generally worse (from what I've seen of it). The private sector can provide the same service at a lower cost (when adjusted for the city paying no property taxes) while still meeting the public policy goals for quality.

 

[xkatz]

Yes I think we should socialize oil. It could use some friends.

 

[Darkness]

France embodies both the good & the bad. Their regulation of nuclear power plants is more efficient than the US primarily because they have a standardized design. But their socialism also puts them at risk for labor strikes on a huge scale, which we regularly see. It's also a pretty expensive place to live.

Labour strikes are not necessisarily a bad thing.

 

[dust1n]

Labour strikes are not necessisarily a bad thing.

They happen when working conditions are unbearable, I think it's a great thing.

 

[dust1n]

I am a political science major,

Yeah, yeah, I know, I know.

it is my job to be nitpicky every day.

Fair enough, I just keep in my that I should be more specific, though sometimes I might lose understanding for from the non-political science majors.

What is truly sad, is when people think neoliberalism has something to do with the ideology of modern liberalism.

It is truly sad, mainly because if one wants to actually understand stand the term, they need solely to go to wikipedia.

 

[Darkness]

Yeah, yeah, I know, I know.

Fair enough, I just keep in my that I should be more specific, though sometimes I might lose understanding for from the non-political science majors.

I am simply being a prick. :yes:

However, one of the worst problems we have in American discourse, is that Socialism is associated with Communism and the Soviet Union.

It is truly sad, mainly because if one wants to actually understand stand the term, they need solely to go to wikipedia.

Wikipedia is usally pretty good when it comes to politcal and economic ideologies and terms.

 

[dust1n]

I am simply being a prick. :yes:

However, one of the worst problems we have in American discourse, is that Socialism is associated with Communism and the Soviet Union.

Socialism is demonized, and then anything involving a stronger government is always called socialistic, but there is no real equivalent for the right - at least not in a popular light.

Anyways, you are not a prick!

Wikipedia is usally pretty good when it comes to politcal and economic ideologies and terms.

Wikipedia is really good for science and math, but lacks a lot of philosophy and art. Not sure why, but regardless, it's always enough to give you a basic idea.

 

[Darkness]

Socialism is demonized, and then anything involving a stronger government is always called socialistic, but there is no real equivalent for the right - at least not in a popular light.

The conservative movement in this country has managed to control the political narrative much more effectively than the liberal/democratic forces have been able to. I hate to say it, but I think one of the problems the Democratic party has is that their politicians and propagandists try to be too reasonable and intelligent. Short and catchy phrases resonate with a public that is not very politically savvy. Conservatives have basically been able to seise controlled of the idea of family morality with words like "Family values" and "protect the family." Though, I think the generation shift, who are not bigoted against homosexuals, will soon erase any gains Conservatives have made in the area of homosexuality

 

[dust1n]

The conservative movement in this country has managed to control the political narrative much more effectively than the liberal/democratic forces have been able to. I hate to say it, but I think one of the problems the Democratic party has is that their politicians and propagandists try to be too reasonable and intelligent. Short and catchy phrases resonate with a public that is not very politically savvy. Conservatives have basically been able to seise controlled of the idea of family morality with words like "Family values" and "protect the family." Though, I think the generation shift, who are not bigoted against homosexuals, will soon erase any gains Conservatives have made in the area of homosexuality

Thought I might share:

The United States of America has taken branding seriously for a long time, having gone so far as to create a Department of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs within the State Department which not only treats America as a brand, but argues that the country's fortunes may depend less on policy realities or traditional identity and behavior, than on brand marketing by experienced advertising and marketing executives. Democracy becomes less a system of governance than an enticing brand logo aimed at turning friends and adversaries alike into consumers of America the product (democracy? Prosperity? Mom and apple pie?). As with consumer marketing in general, the producer of Brand USA works hard to convince consumers (Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle Europe, the Middle East) that "the message is one of empowerment, not American domination or even tutelage."

...

Branding has become a staple of electoral and party politics. From that first inkling in 1966 that running for the presidency could be regarded as a branch of marketing... to Senator John Kerry's suggestion in 2005 that the Democratic Party needs to "unbrand" itself and then rebrand itself "more effectively" to regain its sway over American electoral consumers, party politics has become, among other things, an exercise of consumerism. Keeping brand purity by staying on message is a common preoccupation on the left and the right. Justifying his attacks on Republicans who will not toe his "no more taxes" line, Republican opinion leader Grover Norquist seizes on marketing prudence: "When you have a brand like Coca-Cola, and you find a rat head in a bottle, you create an outcry. Republicans who raises taxes are rat heads in Coke bottles. They endanger the brand."

...

Brand America feels like a metaphor, yet it is much more than that, not a game version of politics but politics itself reconceived as the new public relations specialty known as public diplomacy. Public diplomacy not only defines a new office in the State Department, but has become an academic speciality with its own university departments. Its aim is to frame a global marketing strategy for Brand USA. The office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the State Department has clearly been regarded as a marketing center and has been staffed by marketing and advertising executives. It has assiduously followed the advice of Bush's former... Public Broadcasting Board of Governors chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson. Tomlinson turned aside criticism that President Bush was running a national propaganda machine obsessed with image rather than policy by asserting, "We should not be ashamed of public advocacy on behalf of freedom and democracy and the United States of America." The bipartisan character of this brand approach to politics is evident in the branding work being done by liberal Democrats such as Keith Reinhard, who as CEO of advertising goliath DDB was responsible for, among other successes, McDonald's "You deserve a break today" campaign. Reinhard has developed a program called Business for Diplomatic Action in which he acknowledges that... Brand USA is in trouble, which is clearly a problem for business.

...

The irony of Business for Diplomatic Action's well-intentioned initiative is that even "public" diplomacy is being subjected to privatization and outsourcing. At the same time, corporate brands are seeking their own "civic" luster. Marc Gobe's naive book called Citizen Brand... urges companies to grasp "the fact... that brands must communicate who they are, and if they become true Citizen Brands, with aims of social responsibility as a core element of their corporate mission, they must-- very tactfully-- communicate this point of view!"

...

Treating America as a brand puts image before substance and tries to influence brand consumers by associating the product with sentiments and emotions that have no necessary connection to the nation being pitched. In selling America, Karen Hughes takes a page from Kevin Roberts and Cheerios brand marketing: Cheerios wants to be about Mom rather than boring old oats, Karen Hughes wants America to be about Mom rather than about nasty old Guantanamo Bay or Abu Gharib. Introducing herself on a "listening" tour of the Middle east as just a regular "working Mom" rather than as a Bush intimate associated with policies Muslims deplore, she hoped to divert attention from earned resentments to unearned sentiments.

As astute an observer of American policy as political scientist Shelby Telhami seems also to play Robert's game when he defends public diplomacy by insisting that "the best-lasting public diplomacy isn't propaganda. It's more about created a level of trust." Yet when a nation strives to create trust through public relations rather than policy, that is propaganda.

...the branding approach prizes communication over content, and assumes that a poor image is always the consequences of poor advertising. Democrats and liberals too, no less than Republicans or libertarians, focus on "communicating" properly--framing and reframing positions and finding the right words to describe what are in truth often the wrong positions. Democrats attacked the Bush administration for being out-imaged by Osama bin Laden. "How can a man in a cave outcommunicate the world's leading communication society?" asks a frustrated Richard Holbrooke. Linguist George Lakoff moonlighting for the Democratic Party advisor believes winning votes is all about framing what you do rather than about what you do. Republicans, he admonishes, have branded their kind of leadership "stern father" leadership, leaving the Democrats to look like bad parents. What they need to do is rebrand themselves as nurturing parents (a less gendered and hence politically correct version of "they're playing Dad, let's play Mom!"). This game fails to notice that both the stern father and the nurturing parent images infantilize voters by substituting p/materialism for democratic politics, shoving aside the idea of active citizenship, whose practitioners are not the pliant children of their leaders but the sovereign citizens of the communities in which they live. The language of grown-up democratic politics moves necessarily away from the brand game and back to democratic political theory and practice, where branding appears as what it is, an insidious corruption of democratic ideals and practices.​

I hope you enjoyed reading that, because it took more a while to write it.
​

 

[Darkness]

Thought I might share:



I hope you enjoyed reading that, because it took more a while to write it.
[/LEFT]

I did enjoy it. I assent that policy should be the underlying, driving force. I also believe a well-organised propaganda machine is necessary for good people to make a difference. That is the Machiavelli in me.

 

[Revoltingest]

They happen when working conditions are unbearable, I think it's a great thing.

They also happen when labor just wants more.
I saw this first hand in the auto industry.