4 ms·

The US is really in the worst of both worlds: it's a petrostate, the world's leading fossil fuel producer. With that comes all the tendencies for corrupt author

The US is really in the worst of both worlds: it's a petrostate, the world's leading fossil fuel producer. With that comes all the tendencies for corrupt authoritarianism and democratic backsliding. However, we don't get the customary low direct taxes. In fact, the taxes are going up on the populace, significantly, (via tariffs) almost in lockstep with the increasingly brazen corruption.

IncreasePosts 1y ago
I think, to be a petrostate, you need to derive a huge part of your economy from pumping valuable stuff out of the ground. Fossil fuels in the US are like ... 6% of the US economy? Not nothing in absolute terms - if there was a "United States of Fossil Fuels", it would be the 12th biggest nation by GDP in the world. But still, America derives a vast majority of its economy from non-fossil fuels
- mullingitover 1y ago
  That might be the case, but as far as the political party with a complete, iron-clad grip on the neck of the government is concerned, every other industry is an afterthought. For example, solar and wind are essential parts of an energy portfolio for domestic industry. These are being taken out back and kneecapped with billy clubs to prop up oil/gas/coal. If the country isn't a petrostate it's certainly cosplaying one to a psychotic degree.
  - hedora 1y ago
    Imagine if that 6% of the GDP fed back into social services, education, and other government programs that benefit people. About 17% of the GDP is paid to the federal government in taxes. Nationalizing oil production is equivalent to lowering the effective federal tax rate by 35%.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Nationalizing oil has been tried quite a few places with wildly variable results. In the worst case, you get Venezuela, in the best you get something like UAE where the citizens basically only have jobs if they get bored or want to play police to lord over the foreigners.
      - dylan604 1y ago
        What about Alaska? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
    - oklahomasports 1y ago
      6% of gdp does not mean profit
hangonhn 1y ago
Norway is a petro-state but is well governed and democratic. I think petroleum is an accelerant but the fire of democratic backsliding/authoritarianism has to already exist in the first place. We took it for granted the institutions and traditions that safeguarded our government and didn't really ensure those are kept healthy.
- anon191928 1y ago
  Norway is a kingdom with royal family. Democracy is for the peaceful times. It's not full kingdom like ME but royal family directly have special laws that protect them. So not a full democracy.
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    I think you'd be hard pressed to get most people to agree to that strict of a definition where Norway wouldn't be considered a democracy. It's easy to pick at things like "someone has immunity in court" as unequal, but that kind of thing is typically considered compatible with a democracy. Same with grants, titles, ceremonial roles, etc - so long as the voters choices about such things aren't being suppressed it's pretty solidly in the "democracy" camp - which isn't mutually exclusive with having a decorative king. I'm not sure what the reference to "democracy is for peace" is about, unless you count Nazi occupation and rule as the same government or something.
    - anon191928 1y ago
      "King Harald holds the rank of General in the Army and Air Force, and of Admiral in the Navy. He is the nation's highest-ranking officer." It's easy to verify and see who will lead during non peace times. Thank you for your attention. https://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=28731&sek=27277 https://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=28731&sek=27277
      - zamadatix 1y ago
        I'm not sure which particular passage you're referring to, but keep in mind that page is basically a puff piece about the kings ceremonial roles. He does not actually control the government, act as the leader of the military, etc in the same way his title is "king" but any non-ceremonial rights belong to the elected prime minister. If he tried to name someone else as prime minister during the transition it wouldn't actually mean anything as it's a ceremony. Etc, unless you feel there is a specific passage which the role is not ceremonial, but it's difficult to explain how the whole thing is in response to a single link and no context.
Kapura 1y ago
they fully control the federal government, doing exactly what they said they would do by flooding courts and firing appointees who are insufficiently loyal. they don't think they will need to ever deal with free elections ever again, and they think we're too stupid to do anything about it (bonus: decades and decades of underfunding public education means they might be right).
carabiner 1y ago
Take from the poor, give to the rich. It's an Ayn Randian gerontocracy.

IncreasePosts 1y ago

I think, to be a petrostate, you need to derive a huge part of your economy from pumping valuable stuff out of the ground. Fossil fuels in the US are like ... 6% of the US economy? Not nothing in absolute terms - if there was a "United States of Fossil Fuels", it would be the 12th biggest nation by GDP in the world. But still, America derives a vast majority of its economy from non-fossil fuels

mullingitover 1y ago
That might be the case, but as far as the political party with a complete, iron-clad grip on the neck of the government is concerned, every other industry is an afterthought. For example, solar and wind are essential parts of an energy portfolio for domestic industry. These are being taken out back and kneecapped with billy clubs to prop up oil/gas/coal. If the country isn't a petrostate it's certainly cosplaying one to a psychotic degree.
- hedora 1y ago
  Imagine if that 6% of the GDP fed back into social services, education, and other government programs that benefit people. About 17% of the GDP is paid to the federal government in taxes. Nationalizing oil production is equivalent to lowering the effective federal tax rate by 35%.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Nationalizing oil has been tried quite a few places with wildly variable results. In the worst case, you get Venezuela, in the best you get something like UAE where the citizens basically only have jobs if they get bored or want to play police to lord over the foreigners.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      What about Alaska? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
  - oklahomasports 1y ago
    6% of gdp does not mean profit

hangonhn 1y ago

Norway is a petro-state but is well governed and democratic. I think petroleum is an accelerant but the fire of democratic backsliding/authoritarianism has to already exist in the first place. We took it for granted the institutions and traditions that safeguarded our government and didn't really ensure those are kept healthy.

anon191928 1y ago
Norway is a kingdom with royal family. Democracy is for the peaceful times. It's not full kingdom like ME but royal family directly have special laws that protect them. So not a full democracy.
- zamadatix 1y ago
  I think you'd be hard pressed to get most people to agree to that strict of a definition where Norway wouldn't be considered a democracy. It's easy to pick at things like "someone has immunity in court" as unequal, but that kind of thing is typically considered compatible with a democracy. Same with grants, titles, ceremonial roles, etc - so long as the voters choices about such things aren't being suppressed it's pretty solidly in the "democracy" camp - which isn't mutually exclusive with having a decorative king. I'm not sure what the reference to "democracy is for peace" is about, unless you count Nazi occupation and rule as the same government or something.
  - anon191928 1y ago
    "King Harald holds the rank of General in the Army and Air Force, and of Admiral in the Navy. He is the nation's highest-ranking officer." It's easy to verify and see who will lead during non peace times. Thank you for your attention. https://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=28731&sek=27277 https://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=28731&sek=27277
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      I'm not sure which particular passage you're referring to, but keep in mind that page is basically a puff piece about the kings ceremonial roles. He does not actually control the government, act as the leader of the military, etc in the same way his title is "king" but any non-ceremonial rights belong to the elected prime minister. If he tried to name someone else as prime minister during the transition it wouldn't actually mean anything as it's a ceremony. Etc, unless you feel there is a specific passage which the role is not ceremonial, but it's difficult to explain how the whole thing is in response to a single link and no context.

Kapura 1y ago

they fully control the federal government, doing exactly what they said they would do by flooding courts and firing appointees who are insufficiently loyal. they don't think they will need to ever deal with free elections ever again, and they think we're too stupid to do anything about it (bonus: decades and decades of underfunding public education means they might be right).

carabiner 1y ago

Take from the poor, give to the rich. It's an Ayn Randian gerontocracy.