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 3 days ago | parent [-]

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 3 days ago | parent [-]

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 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

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 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		What about Alaska? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

▲

oklahomasports 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

6% of gdp does not mean profit