The article the set off this discussion did not mention the disinclination of the private petroleum companies to contribute to productivity. Instead of exploration, they use their cash hordes to buy each other's companies. They do little for modernization. Consider British Petroleum's repeated industrial accidents. Should we forget their contribution to shutting down alternative energy, first through buying up startups in the 70s and through political pressure more recently. Now they will most certainly win huge subsidies with their "public-minded" efforts for alternative energy.
Michael Hoover correctly noted that public ownership as such doesn't automatically mean very much unless the government actually puts the proceeds to good use. I suspect that prewar Iraq had elements of both the good and bad of public ownership. The country did put something back into education and health care, but I suspect with some degree of confidence that only a small portion of the proceeds went to any public purpose. One final note that I cannot resist interjecting here. I recall that Marx had a concept called dialectics, in which even negative factors, such as slavery, could play a progressive role. In the same sense, Marx judged England both positively and negatively. Even in discussing something like the organization of the petroleum industry, some of us have an almost reflexive instinct to declare each player either a good guy or a bad guy. Nuances seem to elude us. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
