You know, I don't think the Democrats, liberals, and primitives have the slightest notion of what "nationalization" means.
England, for example, nationalized the steel industry in 1948.
The then-Labour government nationalized it because it was losing money, it was inefficient, and the stockholders wanted it off their hands. So the taxpayers of England took the white elephant off their hands, paying the stockholders a premium price for antiquated and near-ruined machinery and other resources.
In the United States, we had a smaller version of this, "nationalizing" certain railways in the northeastern states, making the new "Conrail" out of the old New York Central, Pennsylvania, New York, New Haven & Hartford, Erie-Lackawanna, &c., &c., &c. railways.
They were losing money, they were inefficient, and their stockholders wanted them off their hands. So the American taxpayers took the white elephants off their hands, paying the stockholders a premium price for wretched real-estate and even more wretched equipment.
That, generally, in democracies, is why "nationalization" occurs; it's a job-saver.
And an expensive job-saver too.
Now, the situation of the petroleum companies is different, but only somewhat different.
If I owned a petroleum company, I'd love to have the government take over the expense, the time, the trouble, the hassle, the tedium, of refining petroleum; one less monkey on this back.
It would be subsidization of corporate interests.
I think decent and civilized people understand this is the case, but as it's reasonably simple to understand, I can't understand why Democrats, liberals, and primitives aren't thinking this thing all the way through; what "nationalization" really means, and is.
