My Guess as to What Venezuelan Oil Means to the USA

[Mike Ault]

How is that socialism? The money is shared with the state on Federal land. And the state is awarding the citizens with that windfall instead of finding projects for the sake of spending money. That's a government practicing capitalism.

How about sharing the profits from all offshore oil operations on US territory with all the people of the United States then? Would you consider that socialism? And if so, how would that differ from what's going on in Alaska?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

How about sharing the profits from all offshore oil operations on US territory with all the people of the United States then?

The royalties paid offshore are paid out to states and into the US Treasury meaning it is money that is not coming out of the pocket of the taxpayer rather benefits the taxpayer. The oil industry basically funds your home state's education system. The fact there is a tangible benefit to money generated by government does not make it socialism. Land owned by the state is the states to benefit from and in benefitting from it, it is an expense the citizens do not bear. Socialism would do what Venezuela did. Nationalize everything then not know how to operate nor maintain it.

Here oil is cheap in comparison to our average income. Gasoline in Venezuela used to be nearly free in terms of an average salary. Today it's .84 Bolivars per LITER. In US dollars that is 2 cents for a Bolivar. So, it is cheap in dollar terms but in real terms in Venezuela the annual INCOME of a citizen is only $24 US.

So, oil royalties provide Texans with a big chunk of the expenses they pay. There is a reason you have no income tax and its oil. Next the income generated offsets the money spent by government. And cheap energy drives the economy. If California prices were spread over the US, we'd be in a depression.

 

[Mike Ault]

The royalties paid offshore are paid out to states and into the US Treasury meaning it is money that is not coming out of the pocket of the taxpayer rather benefits the taxpayer. The oil industry basically funds your home state's education system. The fact there is a tangible benefit to money generated by government does not make it socialism. Land owned by the state is the states to benefit from and in benefitting from it, it is an expense the citizens do not bear. Socialism would do what Venezuela did. Nationalize everything then not know how to operate nor maintain it.

Here oil is cheap in comparison to our average income. Gasoline in Venezuela used to be nearly free in terms of an average salary. Today it's .84 Bolivars per LITER. In US dollars that is 2 cents for a Bolivar. So, it is cheap in dollar terms but in real terms in Venezuela the annual INCOME of a citizen is only $24 US.

So, oil royalties provide Texans with a big chunk of the expenses they pay. There is a reason you have no income tax and its oil. Next the income generated offsets the money spent by government. And cheap energy drives the economy. If California prices were spread over the US, we'd be in a depression.

Nationalism-Socialism of their oil resources worked well for the people of Saudi Arabia, didn't it?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Nationalism-Socialism of their oil resources worked well for the people of Saudi Arabia, didn't it?

Just because the government retained the rights to minerals, just like the government owns a huge chunk of the surface here, does not make it "socialistm". That's a stupid interpretation of the term. The predicate of socialism - Marxism - is that LABOR is the top of the pyramid. The government owns everything, the banks, the corporations, and divvies out the goodies to the masses. This means that the top of the socialist system, is the unelected power leaders. Like Putin, like oligarchs in every society.

Hitler was originally a communist, then he realized that the banks controlled the money, and they and the corporations controlled the economy. He saw socialism as the director of the orchestra, providing a framework for banks and businesses to operate in the best interests of the government. And people were expendable as their job was to serve the state up to and including committing suicide. He was outraged that Paulus did not self-delete when the Russians captured him. Stalin refused to pay ransom for his son who was captured because, like Hitler, he felt he had a duty to die for the state. The only difference in Fascism and Communism is the communists wanted to own and run the corporations and banks.

And few of the countries have successfully developed their oil with their own government employees. They licensed foreign companies to develop their oil and share the proceeds. Paying an entry fee to a state park or national park is not socialism but you seem to think any money taken in by government is proof that they are "socialists" - Really? We pay in SS and Medicare, that's not 'socialism'.