This is why we need to send Thom Hartmann to Washington and set up mandatory classes for all Congress people. Two hours a day in class for every single one of them. Okay, I know they won't sit still for that. But, these messages must be delivered to as many as possible. Maybe we can get Rachel Maddow to do a podcast on these daily lessons in history and government just for the Congress. Does anyone have her number?
Nationalizing the fossil fuel industry is a great idea, perhaps we just need to make the fossil fuel oligarchs an offer that their shareholders won’t let them refuse. We need to propose an effective transition strategy that appeals to the morbidly rich as well as benefits the citizens affected by the change, like their employees and their customers (who really just need energy, after all). And we’ll probably need a super-plurality of competent progressives to overcome the powers of corporate personhood or the bad guys won’t let their hired elected officials in Congress pay to nationalize the industry. Yet.
Maybe just give the greedy bastards each a newly minted trillion-dollar coin, and tell them to go away. Leave us alone. And don't pester the neighbors.
You do realize stockholders, not oligarchs, own US Oil Companies. There is no bad guy at t he top, just Wall Street and their whip-wielding "analysts".
I agree that oil oligopoly is a more appropriate description of our oil market and that stockholders own that handful of corporations. And I also agree that Wall Street is at the heart of all corporate griftings. However, since the powers of corporate personhood have enabled the oil companies to do things adverse to our rights and our communities’ interests, the relationship between stockholders and the oil companies has fundamentally changed. Regardless of the business sector (money, fossil fuels, war, tech, etc.) if an oligopoly exists (and it does), I consider their apex decision-makers as the oligarchs (not the stockholders) because they control our government’s laws and regulations. That’s why they can do things like bribe (or however they coerced) bond rating agencies to stamp AAA on trillions in tranches of highly risky mortgages, destroy the world’s economy and get away with it. (Or dump billions of tons of carbon and other toxic compounds into our ecosphere with impunity while getting $6T in corporate welfare annually.) If you assume that stockholders make rational decisions, and are “unaware” of the negative externalities their investments are supporting, their money will be invested in companies who get away with murder and make the rest of us pay for it. So, the oligarchs tell their hired public sector decision-makers to make it legal to lie, cheat, and steal to improve their profit profile and stockholders buy their stock. I consider stockholders as mostly ignorant customers who are an essential element in the big grift of oligopolies run by oligarchs.
Oligopolies are bad for business and for the economy. As a corporation grows, the need for functional employees who produce nothing grows at least twice as fast. Large Corporations become glutted with middle management that aren't needed in smaller businesses. Above a certain size, it makes financial sense to break them up, for EVERYONE. ATT stockholders doubled their money in the year after they were split up.
Given the small size of US oil companies, there are good business reasons to combine all US companies into one national company, but I can think of more negatives.
Instead, do what I used to do when two employees would complain to me about each other, I'd come up with a project that needed both. They'd be friends in a week.
Let's HIRE the US oil majors to first, deliver a detailed report on the state of the current fossil fuel industry, then detailed in depth studies of possible futures. In my career, we constantly ran into people who had only a fraction right, the rest of their understanding being what they see in the movies. Let's hire the best informed people, and get it right. We'd also need one or two folks from the car companies, and a few generalists who know enough to keep people honest and progressing.
Nov 4, 2022·edited Nov 4, 2022Liked by Thom Hartmann
It is not like we would turn the spigot off right away nor would the PROFIT have to stop rolling in. This is a business venture that could pay for the original purchase during the time we are winding it down. It's going to take 15 years or maybe much more to do just that when it comes to electrifying all modes of transportation.
The other aspect of this industry is manufacture of goods. Think about that nice warm fleece jacket or blanket you are using. Polyester blended with cotton will give you a garment that lasts "forever", just like that muck it's made from. Oil that isn't being burned will still be turned into something useful.
According to "Visual Capitalist", currently 14.1 percent of each barrel goes to asphalt and other products. We obviously need solutions to keeping plastics where they belong and not in our oceans. Buying the industry could be a start of controlling our addiction to plastic. That's a two-fer!
Incisive surprising analysis, backed up by point by point historical review . . . thanks.
Thanks for the Zoom gathering this morning ( Sat ).
To beat the drum, in concert with the theme of this piece: The National Debt Clock is a Lie!
Not just misleading, a bigger, fatter lie.
Our net national household wealth is about $135 Trillion.
The national debt is about $31 Trillion.
If you have $135 in one pocket and an IOU for $31 in the other, what do you call that?
Bill Gates, and Buffett, and Musk have credit cards. They are not ‘in debt!’
Surprising big point: The top group of US billionaires have less than $500 Billion together. That is tiny compared to $135 Trillion, half a Trillion, and that fact is a comfort to me ( and should be to them, too ). *BUT* we have to know the net total ( $135 T ) to know that we have much, much more than any few zillionaires! That said, the top 10% ( entry net about $1.5 M ) have $90 Trillion, and a lot to answer for.
The lower 50% of wealth holders in our country have about $4 Trillion. So I am confused by the claims that the big billionaires have as much or more than the bottom. They don’t by this measure. ( Source US Federal Reserve, ‘distribution of household wealth.’ )
days left, blow minds, change minds — We are not in debt! They lied to you! We are rich! — b.rad
Yes, go straight at them where they live, which is an oily black dystopian hellscape. Borrow from Karl Rove and attack their supposed strengths, full force against their two self-proclaimed strongest issues going into the election: inflation and crime.
C'mon, Democrats; it's easy pickings! Destroy them! Politically, not physically. (Important to qualify the rhetoric these days.)
Katie Porter's recent congressional hearing revealed (admitted to by the tycoons' own spokesman, evidently committed not to lie before Congress) that 54 cents of every dollar of inflation goes directly into corporate profits, i.e., price-gouging by Republican (mostly) donors screwing the citizens up the [bleep] -- ah, my paraphrasing.
And Crime?! Hahahahaha ...give me a fckng break! The biggest criminal on the planet is their own dear leader, the Don! Did we also mention he's a goddamn mass murderer: deliberate criminal negligence that led to MOST of the COVID deaths in the United States!
Oh yeah, that was supposed to go down the toilet memory hole. Like the insurrection on Jan 6. Like flying in the emperor's Praetorian Guard to terrorize the city of Portland Oregon. And never mind that the FBI has flagged domestic terrorism as America's biggest threat, i.e., the fanatical right who vote consistently Republican. They're sure good at criming alright.
Great idea, and the only way to deal with the climate crisis that makes (or would have made) any sense; the problem is that nationalization of that industry should have been done some forty plus years ago, when there was definitive evidence (from Exxon's own scientists) that fossil fuel combustion was causing, or at least, exacerbating, global heating and the resultant climate change that we now experience - and that the fossil fuel industry wasn't going to do a damned thing about it. In fact, that industry has done everything possible to make the problem more serious, and perhaps, beyond remediation.
RE: "So, instead of trying to regulate or engage in a protracted and expensive PR battle with these companies, or bail them out when they go down in flames, why don’t we just buy them now?"
As history shows, re-regulating/breaking-up oligopolies will eventually be overturned once the oligarchs regain control. A government takeover is a necessary first step. Next comes a refocusing of the business model to one that is more socially responsible. Then, to keep business model changes from being undone, the government should turn over their shares of the company to non-management employees.
Government ownership is on behalf of citizens. Transitioning this ownership to employees will keep keep the takeover focused on what's good for employees and society.
So, just how heavy is the propaganda weighing down our dying democracy with a gazillion poured into the midterms by gazillionaires? Paying to corrupt elections and end democracy should weigh mightily on their souls. But it doesn't.
I'm sick of this shit! You can almost tick off the hackneyed talking points by the numbers without even bothering to use words anymore. My billionaires, your billionaires, good billionaires, bad billionaires. You know what? Fck em all! They shouldn't even exist anywhere on planet Earth; end of story. Tax them into extinction! Or send them all to Mars. Whatever. Goodfckingbye!
Why buy them out? Surely we don't owe them anything after all they've done to destroy the world. The executives are all incredibly wealthy. Pay them nothing and invest in the workers in the industry. There are skilled workers there that would not benefit from huge shareholder payouts.
Buying out an industry you cannot slow, much less shut down, without every American screaming about gasoline prices, isn't a smart move. It's grabbing a lit torch in a fuel tank, not gonna end well.
Besides, supply side economics DOES NOT WORK. You can't change demand with supply. Eliminate fossil fuel supply can only be done efficiently by eliminating fossil fuel demand.
Instead, why don't we support the oil company proposal to switch to a zero emissions liquid fuel that will run the machinery we already have, and replace it with black matter generators or whatever is coming, as we can. The shipping industry is switching to zero emissions ammonia. Recent advances in thermopiles make it possible to surround a pea sized bit of nuclear waste with thermopiles and have a 100 year electric battery.
I just read that Guyana is changing the licensing on their next round of leases. They will essentially split the profits with the oil company, after reasonable operating costs. I we simply quit handing over $300 billion of oil for $50,000 and did a 50/50 deal instead, they wouldn't price gouge and if they did, we get half off the top.
If only we could get the country to boycott one large fossil fuel company at a time. When that one would eventually succumb, then proceed to the next one. Maybe, just maybe........the competition would get the message........
Ok, I'll be brief. I know oil inside out. If you go to Norway, well known in the oil industry as "commies", you find something interesting. They never gave away their oil. They hire the oil companies to extract their oil, and reward them generously. The oil companies get to recoup all costs, plus a certain number of BBLs per day, plus a percentage of all sales after that.
The rest of they oil money goes into a sovereign wealth fund. Any Norwegian can apply for a business loan from this fund. The review board is really good; if a company says "I have a great idea, give me money", they are told to come back with a business plan, which includes who they intend to hire, better have capable accountants and marketing at the least.
This practice filled Norway with small competitive entrepreneurs. I know one fellow who started his first company with a wealth fund loan, and has since created thousands of high paying jobs. All because Norway doesn't give away their oil money.
I haven't checked recently, but one Norwegian friend said if they wanted to, every Norwegian could have $60,000 a year for life from the gains of the fund, but Norway has so many great and good paying jobs that the citizens mostly say "let's wait for bad times".
The problem I have with nationalizing oil companies is congress will use them to rob us. Instead, let's quit giving them our oil.
When Chavez nationalized Venezuela's oil and went to a system like Norway, all the US companies said they would leave if they couldn't continue to keep 99%. Chavez expressed his dismay at them leaving because it would take months for the long line of competitors to restart the industry, but he wished them well. As the deadline approached, every US oil company quietly signed on. Yes, their profits dropped, but it's still extremely profitable.
This is why we need to send Thom Hartmann to Washington and set up mandatory classes for all Congress people. Two hours a day in class for every single one of them. Okay, I know they won't sit still for that. But, these messages must be delivered to as many as possible. Maybe we can get Rachel Maddow to do a podcast on these daily lessons in history and government just for the Congress. Does anyone have her number?
Nationalizing the fossil fuel industry is a great idea, perhaps we just need to make the fossil fuel oligarchs an offer that their shareholders won’t let them refuse. We need to propose an effective transition strategy that appeals to the morbidly rich as well as benefits the citizens affected by the change, like their employees and their customers (who really just need energy, after all). And we’ll probably need a super-plurality of competent progressives to overcome the powers of corporate personhood or the bad guys won’t let their hired elected officials in Congress pay to nationalize the industry. Yet.
Maybe just give the greedy bastards each a newly minted trillion-dollar coin, and tell them to go away. Leave us alone. And don't pester the neighbors.
You do realize stockholders, not oligarchs, own US Oil Companies. There is no bad guy at t he top, just Wall Street and their whip-wielding "analysts".
We have an oil oligopoly, not an oil oligarchy.
I agree that oil oligopoly is a more appropriate description of our oil market and that stockholders own that handful of corporations. And I also agree that Wall Street is at the heart of all corporate griftings. However, since the powers of corporate personhood have enabled the oil companies to do things adverse to our rights and our communities’ interests, the relationship between stockholders and the oil companies has fundamentally changed. Regardless of the business sector (money, fossil fuels, war, tech, etc.) if an oligopoly exists (and it does), I consider their apex decision-makers as the oligarchs (not the stockholders) because they control our government’s laws and regulations. That’s why they can do things like bribe (or however they coerced) bond rating agencies to stamp AAA on trillions in tranches of highly risky mortgages, destroy the world’s economy and get away with it. (Or dump billions of tons of carbon and other toxic compounds into our ecosphere with impunity while getting $6T in corporate welfare annually.) If you assume that stockholders make rational decisions, and are “unaware” of the negative externalities their investments are supporting, their money will be invested in companies who get away with murder and make the rest of us pay for it. So, the oligarchs tell their hired public sector decision-makers to make it legal to lie, cheat, and steal to improve their profit profile and stockholders buy their stock. I consider stockholders as mostly ignorant customers who are an essential element in the big grift of oligopolies run by oligarchs.
Oligopolies are bad for business and for the economy. As a corporation grows, the need for functional employees who produce nothing grows at least twice as fast. Large Corporations become glutted with middle management that aren't needed in smaller businesses. Above a certain size, it makes financial sense to break them up, for EVERYONE. ATT stockholders doubled their money in the year after they were split up.
Given the small size of US oil companies, there are good business reasons to combine all US companies into one national company, but I can think of more negatives.
Instead, do what I used to do when two employees would complain to me about each other, I'd come up with a project that needed both. They'd be friends in a week.
Let's HIRE the US oil majors to first, deliver a detailed report on the state of the current fossil fuel industry, then detailed in depth studies of possible futures. In my career, we constantly ran into people who had only a fraction right, the rest of their understanding being what they see in the movies. Let's hire the best informed people, and get it right. We'd also need one or two folks from the car companies, and a few generalists who know enough to keep people honest and progressing.
It is not like we would turn the spigot off right away nor would the PROFIT have to stop rolling in. This is a business venture that could pay for the original purchase during the time we are winding it down. It's going to take 15 years or maybe much more to do just that when it comes to electrifying all modes of transportation.
The other aspect of this industry is manufacture of goods. Think about that nice warm fleece jacket or blanket you are using. Polyester blended with cotton will give you a garment that lasts "forever", just like that muck it's made from. Oil that isn't being burned will still be turned into something useful.
According to "Visual Capitalist", currently 14.1 percent of each barrel goes to asphalt and other products. We obviously need solutions to keeping plastics where they belong and not in our oceans. Buying the industry could be a start of controlling our addiction to plastic. That's a two-fer!
Nicely written! I had no idea there were so many precedents in our history for doing this. Thank you Thom.
Incisive surprising analysis, backed up by point by point historical review . . . thanks.
Thanks for the Zoom gathering this morning ( Sat ).
To beat the drum, in concert with the theme of this piece: The National Debt Clock is a Lie!
Not just misleading, a bigger, fatter lie.
Our net national household wealth is about $135 Trillion.
The national debt is about $31 Trillion.
If you have $135 in one pocket and an IOU for $31 in the other, what do you call that?
Bill Gates, and Buffett, and Musk have credit cards. They are not ‘in debt!’
Surprising big point: The top group of US billionaires have less than $500 Billion together. That is tiny compared to $135 Trillion, half a Trillion, and that fact is a comfort to me ( and should be to them, too ). *BUT* we have to know the net total ( $135 T ) to know that we have much, much more than any few zillionaires! That said, the top 10% ( entry net about $1.5 M ) have $90 Trillion, and a lot to answer for.
The lower 50% of wealth holders in our country have about $4 Trillion. So I am confused by the claims that the big billionaires have as much or more than the bottom. They don’t by this measure. ( Source US Federal Reserve, ‘distribution of household wealth.’ )
days left, blow minds, change minds — We are not in debt! They lied to you! We are rich! — b.rad
Yes, go straight at them where they live, which is an oily black dystopian hellscape. Borrow from Karl Rove and attack their supposed strengths, full force against their two self-proclaimed strongest issues going into the election: inflation and crime.
C'mon, Democrats; it's easy pickings! Destroy them! Politically, not physically. (Important to qualify the rhetoric these days.)
Katie Porter's recent congressional hearing revealed (admitted to by the tycoons' own spokesman, evidently committed not to lie before Congress) that 54 cents of every dollar of inflation goes directly into corporate profits, i.e., price-gouging by Republican (mostly) donors screwing the citizens up the [bleep] -- ah, my paraphrasing.
And Crime?! Hahahahaha ...give me a fckng break! The biggest criminal on the planet is their own dear leader, the Don! Did we also mention he's a goddamn mass murderer: deliberate criminal negligence that led to MOST of the COVID deaths in the United States!
Oh yeah, that was supposed to go down the toilet memory hole. Like the insurrection on Jan 6. Like flying in the emperor's Praetorian Guard to terrorize the city of Portland Oregon. And never mind that the FBI has flagged domestic terrorism as America's biggest threat, i.e., the fanatical right who vote consistently Republican. They're sure good at criming alright.
Do you think you could get Obama to read your comment in a commercial?
Haha, i can't even get my dog to fetch a stick. I swear she's laughing at me behind that stoic look.
Which Don?
Don T!
Vote R? Don’T!
where are the Q morons when conspiracy idiocy might actually be useful . . . ? — b.rad
Good one!
Great idea, and the only way to deal with the climate crisis that makes (or would have made) any sense; the problem is that nationalization of that industry should have been done some forty plus years ago, when there was definitive evidence (from Exxon's own scientists) that fossil fuel combustion was causing, or at least, exacerbating, global heating and the resultant climate change that we now experience - and that the fossil fuel industry wasn't going to do a damned thing about it. In fact, that industry has done everything possible to make the problem more serious, and perhaps, beyond remediation.
RE: "So, instead of trying to regulate or engage in a protracted and expensive PR battle with these companies, or bail them out when they go down in flames, why don’t we just buy them now?"
As history shows, re-regulating/breaking-up oligopolies will eventually be overturned once the oligarchs regain control. A government takeover is a necessary first step. Next comes a refocusing of the business model to one that is more socially responsible. Then, to keep business model changes from being undone, the government should turn over their shares of the company to non-management employees.
Government ownership is on behalf of citizens. Transitioning this ownership to employees will keep keep the takeover focused on what's good for employees and society.
Thom; thanks again for providing us such valuable information which allows us to win the "water cooler wars."
So, just how heavy is the propaganda weighing down our dying democracy with a gazillion poured into the midterms by gazillionaires? Paying to corrupt elections and end democracy should weigh mightily on their souls. But it doesn't.
One grain of sand:
https://youtu.be/DNwLMeXtC2k
...in a moral desert: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/11/03/drowning-our-democracy-us-billionaires-have-pumped-nearly-900000000-midterms
I'm sick of this shit! You can almost tick off the hackneyed talking points by the numbers without even bothering to use words anymore. My billionaires, your billionaires, good billionaires, bad billionaires. You know what? Fck em all! They shouldn't even exist anywhere on planet Earth; end of story. Tax them into extinction! Or send them all to Mars. Whatever. Goodfckingbye!
But one wonders, how do you really feel?
Yeah, I shouldn't hold back. ];--))
Why buy them out? Surely we don't owe them anything after all they've done to destroy the world. The executives are all incredibly wealthy. Pay them nothing and invest in the workers in the industry. There are skilled workers there that would not benefit from huge shareholder payouts.
Buying out an industry you cannot slow, much less shut down, without every American screaming about gasoline prices, isn't a smart move. It's grabbing a lit torch in a fuel tank, not gonna end well.
Besides, supply side economics DOES NOT WORK. You can't change demand with supply. Eliminate fossil fuel supply can only be done efficiently by eliminating fossil fuel demand.
Instead, why don't we support the oil company proposal to switch to a zero emissions liquid fuel that will run the machinery we already have, and replace it with black matter generators or whatever is coming, as we can. The shipping industry is switching to zero emissions ammonia. Recent advances in thermopiles make it possible to surround a pea sized bit of nuclear waste with thermopiles and have a 100 year electric battery.
I just read that Guyana is changing the licensing on their next round of leases. They will essentially split the profits with the oil company, after reasonable operating costs. I we simply quit handing over $300 billion of oil for $50,000 and did a 50/50 deal instead, they wouldn't price gouge and if they did, we get half off the top.
If only we could get the country to boycott one large fossil fuel company at a time. When that one would eventually succumb, then proceed to the next one. Maybe, just maybe........the competition would get the message........
Ok, I'll be brief. I know oil inside out. If you go to Norway, well known in the oil industry as "commies", you find something interesting. They never gave away their oil. They hire the oil companies to extract their oil, and reward them generously. The oil companies get to recoup all costs, plus a certain number of BBLs per day, plus a percentage of all sales after that.
The rest of they oil money goes into a sovereign wealth fund. Any Norwegian can apply for a business loan from this fund. The review board is really good; if a company says "I have a great idea, give me money", they are told to come back with a business plan, which includes who they intend to hire, better have capable accountants and marketing at the least.
This practice filled Norway with small competitive entrepreneurs. I know one fellow who started his first company with a wealth fund loan, and has since created thousands of high paying jobs. All because Norway doesn't give away their oil money.
I haven't checked recently, but one Norwegian friend said if they wanted to, every Norwegian could have $60,000 a year for life from the gains of the fund, but Norway has so many great and good paying jobs that the citizens mostly say "let's wait for bad times".
The problem I have with nationalizing oil companies is congress will use them to rob us. Instead, let's quit giving them our oil.
When Chavez nationalized Venezuela's oil and went to a system like Norway, all the US companies said they would leave if they couldn't continue to keep 99%. Chavez expressed his dismay at them leaving because it would take months for the long line of competitors to restart the industry, but he wished them well. As the deadline approached, every US oil company quietly signed on. Yes, their profits dropped, but it's still extremely profitable.