5 ms·

Perhaps the Oil companies control the US gov't. Or perhaps they're actually the same.

nickserv 8y ago
Interesting then to note that Norway, where the oil company is majority owned by the government, also has the largest per capita fleet of electric cars.
- wereHamster 8y ago
  But the norwegian government is owned by people, unlike the US govt which is owned by corporations. And the people know that it's in their best interest to switch to EV. Also, the norwegian government will end their investments into oil & gas: https://www.ft.com/content/611c2e9e-cad9-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8c6c https://www.ft.com/content/611c2e9e-cad9-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8...
  - nickserv 8y ago
    In principle, the US government represents the will of the people. Government officials may be corrupt and in the pockets of corporate interests, but clinging to power is an even bigger motivator. If enough voters demand something, they are usually forced into delivering it, at least partly. The major problem in my view is the systematic and continuous disinformation campaigns regarding climate change and environmental problems in general (financed of course by oil and chemical companies). By keeping voters misinformed and confused, corporate powers ensure they are able to continue their operations without public oversight.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >In principle, the US government represents the will of the people. Unfortunately that's not really encoded in how you guys and gals do elections. From gerrymandering, to the stale two-horse race for party-approved candidates, to the emphasis on a single person (the "President") with roman senate undertones as opposed to collaborating MPs (and where are the coalition governments?), to legal lobbying, to the undue role of appointed justices in legislation, to the BS with vote registration (and voting day not being an official holiday)... It's like everything has been done to distance the governance from the will of the people...
      - nvarsj 8y ago
        On the other hand, this probably allowed the US to become the superpower it is. I feel the US is the closest example in the modern world to capitalism unchecked - with both the pros and cons that entails.
        w0utert 8y ago
        >> I feel the US is the closest example in the modern world to capitalism unchecked - with both the pros and cons that entails. Please enlighten me which parts of the 'pros of capitalism' I'm missing out on as a non-US citizen, because I definitely don't see many, if any at all.
        coldtea 8y ago
        I guess it would be paying $1000 for a $50 medical procedure, because the unchecked health industry wants to make a profit, and can just ramp prices, enforce its dictums, and pay politicians uncheckedly.
        nvarsj 8y ago
        "Pros" are subjective, of course. But if you ask an American to describe why US is great, it would be things like: * Largest economy on the planet * Biggest and most well known tech companies (or companies in general) * Majority of the top research universities * Quality of medical system (if you can pay!) * And so on For us in tech, living in the US is no comparison - it's the best place to be an engineer by a long shot, due to much higher wages and opportunities. Not to say you can't find good stuff elsewhere, it's just harder, and you'll get rewarded much less in general. Increased regulation, labour protections, consumer protections, and so on stifles the economy, at least in the short term. I'm not saying that's bad - there's more to life than money, which I think is an idea that Europe embraces more so than the US.
        w0utert 8y ago
        I don't feel any of these things provide people with more or better opportunities than those I have here, or elsewhere in many western-European or Asian countries. The universities here are great, and actually rank equal to or better than all but a handful of US ones. The quality and availability of health care is basically the same, for a much lower price. Even for rare treatment options that are only available abroad (e.g. in the US), which are covered through regular health insurance. There are many high-tech companies in countries like the UK, Germany, Scaninavia, Netherlands, etc. Maybe not as many software companies as in Silicon Valley, but those only employ a tiny percentage of people. If you have a university or college degree you can make a great living here, and your standard of living is most definitely a lot better than in Silicon Valley. I know because I travel there regularly for work and have many direct colleagues who live and work there, some who transfered from here, and I know how much they make and what their cost of living is. Having 'more of X', 'biggest of', 'best of', 'largest economy' have exactly zero meaning in the context of the lives of individual people. Just looking around what we have here, and what you have in the US, there are no 'pros of capitalism unchecked' that are exclusive to the US for the vast majority of people. There are many cons though. There reason for my somewhat snarky original comment is that I honestly don't think anyone could come up with any factual, comprehensive facts that prove that the US has any exclusive benefits from 'capitalism unchecked'. In fact, most lists (per capita income, poverty, cost of living, education, vertical mobility, health care, and maybe most importantly: happiness) the US is not even near the top.
    - HenryBemis 8y ago
      It's called lobbying and it works in favor of the big money/oil companies. I don't want to name names, but "Bush administration". The planet needs to move away from fuel and turn to sun/wind/waves. It is a slow change, but we can't wait for the oil companies to drain every last dollar/euro/yen/.. from us, before 'they do us a favor' on switching to sun/wind/waves.
    - fsloth 8y ago
      "In principle, the US government represents the will of the people." I think US government has always represented mostly the rights and benefits of native capital. There is nothing wrong with this, IMO, just as long as it is understood that where in Europe the nationalistic movements which picked up their wind from the US and French examples, thus leading to the modern nation states, where fueled by popular sentiment, the US independence was a semi-private project by an oligarchic clique. Note: taking care of native capital is one of the best recipes for power and independence, which then facilitates all sorts of nice benefits for all around, but it's not everything that is required for building a good life for all.
      - profalseidol 8y ago
        just even thinking about 'capital' is wrong. we'd be so much in better shape now if we dropped that idea (in all forms incl state capitalism) already.
        fsloth 8y ago
        Dude, all improvements to modern life since the middle ages have been due to capitalist advances. It predates and I would claim was a key factor in scientific revolution as well, in making resources available to clever gentlemen of leisure and learning. If you don't like capitalism, may I suggest it is not the process of prosperity creation itself, but the lack of percieved fairness that troubles you?
    - jernfrost 8y ago
      In practice however democracy doesn't work in the US. The system allows a duopoly of two parties which have long ago been bought by corporate interests. You actually need laws in a democracy to prevent government from being taken over by special interests. In Norway we traditionally secured this by strong limitations on the usage of political ads. Hence you could not fund yourself to political popularity. The other mechanism is that starting a new party is very easy in Norway, so as soon as established parties are not representing the interests of people they will get squeezed out by new parties. I think what helps Norway, is that we don't view our constitution and political system as an immutable document. We have been far more willing to tinker with the system and improve it than in the US. I think this is down to the fact that getting where we are today is a very gradual historical process. When our constitution was written it was not a full democracy. It still involved a king with considerably political power. In the US, the country begins with a pretty good constitution very early on. This I think has enforced the myth that there is no need for regular updates and improvements.
  - AuthorizedCust 8y ago
    >the norwegian government is owned by people Nope. Still a monarchy.
- tanto 8y ago
  > oil company is majority owned by the government You are correct. Thats in Norway in the US its the other way around.
- tankenmate 8y ago
  Norway also has proportional representation, so politically it is very unlikely to get a political duopoly and the system encourages cooperation.
- Arnt 8y ago
  You're confusing two unrelated matters. All of the oil companies pay the same 78% tax rate in .no. The state-owned one also pays its profits, but the profits are a rounding error compared to those 78%. All the oil that's pumped from below the seafloor is sold. Selling more oil to domestic drivers wouldn't really increase the world's oil price, or state's tax revenue.
- scottdupoy 8y ago
  Norway seems to be progressive and open-minded about this kind of thing. They have a massive sovereign wealth fund which has built up on the back of a successful national oil industry. However, last year they announced their intention to divest from oil and gas stocks. Whether or not this is to try and make the fund more environmentally and socially responsible, or if they genuinely believe that these are poor investment choices is an interesting question. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/16/oil-and-gas-shares-dip-as-norways-central-bank-advises-oslo-to-divest https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/16/oil-and-gas... [edit: add link]
  - c12 8y ago
    Don't they have some requirement by law to always look to the next 50 years or something rather than the usual politician outlook of "however long I am in office for, to benefit me the most." I would imagine over the next 50 years oil and gas is going to be a worst investment than renewable simply because by then it will have largely run out? Then again when companies such as BP are increasing their investments into renewable energy sources it makes sense to see Norway doing the same.
    - tankenmate 8y ago
      The sovereign wealth fund has a full time philosopher on it's staff; policy decisions are required to have an active input from said philosopher around a number of issues, in particular ethics.[0] [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113340298608010935 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113340298608010935
shaki-dora 8y ago
US politics is actually very receptive to public opinion. Tobacco and alcohol lobbies are fighting tooth and nail against marijuana legalization, especially since it currently limits company sizes in most states, effectively shutting them out of the market. But they are on the verge and/or have already lost that fight. So no, the US record on environmental issues isn’t the result of an industry takeover of government. It’s the result of effectively lobbying the public, and making “damaging the environment” part of people’s perceived identity in some quarters. Just look at the appeal of Trump’s focus on coal: the industry has about 50000 workers left. That’s far less than solar or wind, or Tesla alone. But coal plays to a certain image of masculinity and self-interest that is far more common in the US.
walrus01 8y ago
The US federal government in general is a textbook case study in regulatory capture (recent new head of the EPA, the FCC, etc).

Interesting then to note that Norway, where the oil company is majority owned by the government, also has the largest per capita fleet of electric cars.

wereHamster 8y ago
But the norwegian government is owned by people, unlike the US govt which is owned by corporations. And the people know that it's in their best interest to switch to EV. Also, the norwegian government will end their investments into oil & gas: https://www.ft.com/content/611c2e9e-cad9-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8c6c https://www.ft.com/content/611c2e9e-cad9-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8...
- nickserv 8y ago
  In principle, the US government represents the will of the people. Government officials may be corrupt and in the pockets of corporate interests, but clinging to power is an even bigger motivator. If enough voters demand something, they are usually forced into delivering it, at least partly. The major problem in my view is the systematic and continuous disinformation campaigns regarding climate change and environmental problems in general (financed of course by oil and chemical companies). By keeping voters misinformed and confused, corporate powers ensure they are able to continue their operations without public oversight.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >In principle, the US government represents the will of the people. Unfortunately that's not really encoded in how you guys and gals do elections. From gerrymandering, to the stale two-horse race for party-approved candidates, to the emphasis on a single person (the "President") with roman senate undertones as opposed to collaborating MPs (and where are the coalition governments?), to legal lobbying, to the undue role of appointed justices in legislation, to the BS with vote registration (and voting day not being an official holiday)... It's like everything has been done to distance the governance from the will of the people...
    - nvarsj 8y ago
      On the other hand, this probably allowed the US to become the superpower it is. I feel the US is the closest example in the modern world to capitalism unchecked - with both the pros and cons that entails.
      - w0utert 8y ago
        >> I feel the US is the closest example in the modern world to capitalism unchecked - with both the pros and cons that entails. Please enlighten me which parts of the 'pros of capitalism' I'm missing out on as a non-US citizen, because I definitely don't see many, if any at all.
        coldtea 8y ago
        I guess it would be paying $1000 for a $50 medical procedure, because the unchecked health industry wants to make a profit, and can just ramp prices, enforce its dictums, and pay politicians uncheckedly.
        nvarsj 8y ago
        "Pros" are subjective, of course. But if you ask an American to describe why US is great, it would be things like: * Largest economy on the planet * Biggest and most well known tech companies (or companies in general) * Majority of the top research universities * Quality of medical system (if you can pay!) * And so on For us in tech, living in the US is no comparison - it's the best place to be an engineer by a long shot, due to much higher wages and opportunities. Not to say you can't find good stuff elsewhere, it's just harder, and you'll get rewarded much less in general. Increased regulation, labour protections, consumer protections, and so on stifles the economy, at least in the short term. I'm not saying that's bad - there's more to life than money, which I think is an idea that Europe embraces more so than the US.
        w0utert 8y ago
        I don't feel any of these things provide people with more or better opportunities than those I have here, or elsewhere in many western-European or Asian countries. The universities here are great, and actually rank equal to or better than all but a handful of US ones. The quality and availability of health care is basically the same, for a much lower price. Even for rare treatment options that are only available abroad (e.g. in the US), which are covered through regular health insurance. There are many high-tech companies in countries like the UK, Germany, Scaninavia, Netherlands, etc. Maybe not as many software companies as in Silicon Valley, but those only employ a tiny percentage of people. If you have a university or college degree you can make a great living here, and your standard of living is most definitely a lot better than in Silicon Valley. I know because I travel there regularly for work and have many direct colleagues who live and work there, some who transfered from here, and I know how much they make and what their cost of living is. Having 'more of X', 'biggest of', 'best of', 'largest economy' have exactly zero meaning in the context of the lives of individual people. Just looking around what we have here, and what you have in the US, there are no 'pros of capitalism unchecked' that are exclusive to the US for the vast majority of people. There are many cons though. There reason for my somewhat snarky original comment is that I honestly don't think anyone could come up with any factual, comprehensive facts that prove that the US has any exclusive benefits from 'capitalism unchecked'. In fact, most lists (per capita income, poverty, cost of living, education, vertical mobility, health care, and maybe most importantly: happiness) the US is not even near the top.
  - HenryBemis 8y ago
    It's called lobbying and it works in favor of the big money/oil companies. I don't want to name names, but "Bush administration". The planet needs to move away from fuel and turn to sun/wind/waves. It is a slow change, but we can't wait for the oil companies to drain every last dollar/euro/yen/.. from us, before 'they do us a favor' on switching to sun/wind/waves.
  - fsloth 8y ago
    "In principle, the US government represents the will of the people." I think US government has always represented mostly the rights and benefits of native capital. There is nothing wrong with this, IMO, just as long as it is understood that where in Europe the nationalistic movements which picked up their wind from the US and French examples, thus leading to the modern nation states, where fueled by popular sentiment, the US independence was a semi-private project by an oligarchic clique. Note: taking care of native capital is one of the best recipes for power and independence, which then facilitates all sorts of nice benefits for all around, but it's not everything that is required for building a good life for all.
    - profalseidol 8y ago
      just even thinking about 'capital' is wrong. we'd be so much in better shape now if we dropped that idea (in all forms incl state capitalism) already.
      - fsloth 8y ago
        Dude, all improvements to modern life since the middle ages have been due to capitalist advances. It predates and I would claim was a key factor in scientific revolution as well, in making resources available to clever gentlemen of leisure and learning. If you don't like capitalism, may I suggest it is not the process of prosperity creation itself, but the lack of percieved fairness that troubles you?
  - jernfrost 8y ago
    In practice however democracy doesn't work in the US. The system allows a duopoly of two parties which have long ago been bought by corporate interests. You actually need laws in a democracy to prevent government from being taken over by special interests. In Norway we traditionally secured this by strong limitations on the usage of political ads. Hence you could not fund yourself to political popularity. The other mechanism is that starting a new party is very easy in Norway, so as soon as established parties are not representing the interests of people they will get squeezed out by new parties. I think what helps Norway, is that we don't view our constitution and political system as an immutable document. We have been far more willing to tinker with the system and improve it than in the US. I think this is down to the fact that getting where we are today is a very gradual historical process. When our constitution was written it was not a full democracy. It still involved a king with considerably political power. In the US, the country begins with a pretty good constitution very early on. This I think has enforced the myth that there is no need for regular updates and improvements.
- AuthorizedCust 8y ago
  >the norwegian government is owned by people Nope. Still a monarchy.
tanto 8y ago
> oil company is majority owned by the government You are correct. Thats in Norway in the US its the other way around.
tankenmate 8y ago
Norway also has proportional representation, so politically it is very unlikely to get a political duopoly and the system encourages cooperation.
Arnt 8y ago
You're confusing two unrelated matters. All of the oil companies pay the same 78% tax rate in .no. The state-owned one also pays its profits, but the profits are a rounding error compared to those 78%. All the oil that's pumped from below the seafloor is sold. Selling more oil to domestic drivers wouldn't really increase the world's oil price, or state's tax revenue.
scottdupoy 8y ago
Norway seems to be progressive and open-minded about this kind of thing. They have a massive sovereign wealth fund which has built up on the back of a successful national oil industry. However, last year they announced their intention to divest from oil and gas stocks. Whether or not this is to try and make the fund more environmentally and socially responsible, or if they genuinely believe that these are poor investment choices is an interesting question. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/16/oil-and-gas-shares-dip-as-norways-central-bank-advises-oslo-to-divest https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/16/oil-and-gas... [edit: add link]
- c12 8y ago
  Don't they have some requirement by law to always look to the next 50 years or something rather than the usual politician outlook of "however long I am in office for, to benefit me the most." I would imagine over the next 50 years oil and gas is going to be a worst investment than renewable simply because by then it will have largely run out? Then again when companies such as BP are increasing their investments into renewable energy sources it makes sense to see Norway doing the same.
  - tankenmate 8y ago
    The sovereign wealth fund has a full time philosopher on it's staff; policy decisions are required to have an active input from said philosopher around a number of issues, in particular ethics.[0] [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113340298608010935 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113340298608010935

shaki-dora 8y ago

US politics is actually very receptive to public opinion. Tobacco and alcohol lobbies are fighting tooth and nail against marijuana legalization, especially since it currently limits company sizes in most states, effectively shutting them out of the market. But they are on the verge and/or have already lost that fight. So no, the US record on environmental issues isn’t the result of an industry takeover of government. It’s the result of effectively lobbying the public, and making “damaging the environment” part of people’s perceived identity in some quarters. Just look at the appeal of Trump’s focus on coal: the industry has about 50000 workers left. That’s far less than solar or wind, or Tesla alone. But coal plays to a certain image of masculinity and self-interest that is far more common in the US.

walrus01 8y ago

The US federal government in general is a textbook case study in regulatory capture (recent new head of the EPA, the FCC, etc).