Donald Trump has suggested US taxpayers could reimburse energy companies for repairing Venezuelan infrastructure for extracting and shipping oil.

Trump acknowledged that “a lot of money” would need to be spent to increase oil production in Venezuela after US forces ousted its leader, Nicolás Maduro, but suggested his government could pay oil companies to do the work.

“A tremendous amount of money will have to be spent and the oil companies will spend it, and then they’ll get reimbursed by us or through revenue,” the president said.

The US energy secretary, Chris Wright, reportedly plans to meet representatives of Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil at the Goldman Sachs Energy, Clean Tech & Utilities Conference in Miami later this week.

  • fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Lol Donny you’re losing the thread here you gotta pretend to fuck over foreigners, not Americans. Come on now, focus!

  • qyron@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Wait! Isn’t socialism, according to the american doctrine, a very bad thing?

  • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    20 hours ago

    So he invaded Venezuala for oil money, but is planning to take a loss so that other people can sell that oil for him.

    A genius businessman, everybody.

  • stringere@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Goldman Sachs Energy, Clean Tech & Utilities Conference in Miami later this week.

    Earnest wuestion: How does one find out about events like this with sufficient notice to organize protests to disrupt and shut these kinds of meetings down?

  • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    23 hours ago

    FUCK THAT!

    If taxpayers pay for it, then taxpayers should receive the profits.

    Why the fuck should taxpayers finance capitalist ventures that only enrich the shareholders?

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        his wealth has grown like 3x since he was elected, before that he was losing quite a bit of money fending of lawsuits and other cases in court.

        • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          At my age I think that is the only course in system that allows unrestricted hoarding of resources.

          I don’t think these people have anything outside of their need to hoard in life. It is a mental illness.

          • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            I agree with you completely and I’ve been calling it out for years. People treated me like I was a crackpot for saying things like “infinite pursuit of growth is neither possible nor desirable.” Or “life isn’t a zero-sum game and a system that’s built to uplift everyone is better than a system designed to maximize gains for a few.”

            Clearly there aren’t many leftists around me, or at least the ones who are hate me for different reasons. Maybe because I said MLs are authoritarians and no better than maga. I like democracy, it’s capitalism that needs to go. The Nordic model seemed to work just fine until right-wing propagandists invaded Scandinavia.

            Oh, I also compared capitalists to cancerous growths, and that made the oligarchs feel so oppressed. Maybe that’s why billionaires these days are comparing themselves to holocaust victims. Those poor billionaires… won’t anyone think of the shareholders?

            • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 hours ago

              they are also obsessed with longevity, they want to outlive the people they exploited so they dont come after them, plus to remain relevant.

            • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              Clearly there aren’t many leftists around me

              Sounds likely. I don’t know many that aren’t terrified of a society that glorifies unreasonable accumulation.

              • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                Because they think it would allow them to do the same…

                …while they work into their seventies because a full retirement is out of reach for most of the working class…

    • INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      I’m no expert and would love to be told if this is wrong, from what I’ve heard, oil companies won’t be doing jack shit so I don’t think you will need to worry about your tax dollars reimbursing them.

      Oil is barely profitable for investment at the moment.

      If it was they could invest into US oil in the permian basin where there is still billions of barrels to go. Drill baby drill, I belive they say.

      Investment would be much more stable in the US because fuck knows what is going to happen in venuzula in the next year, let alone in the next administration. They would probably lose it all over again.

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        It would be profitable for them if they get the taxpayers to cover all their expenses while keeping the gains for themselves.

        It would be evil, but capitalism doesn’t care about that. They only care about what’s profitable, even if everyone else suffers as a result.

        • INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Oh, well yeah if the tax payers are tax paying then yes they are pretty fucked but I still don’t see them actually building anything.

          He couldn’t even build a wall last time, she’ll be right mate.

  • worhui@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I am surprised to hear such a realistic assessment.

    I thought this was going to be like the wall or tariffs, but yeah the us tax payer will fund the foreign country’s infrastructure.

  • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    That article reads like they’re trying to sell the bear’s skin before they’ve caught it. They kidnapped the Venezuelan leader, but the rest of the old regime is still in power. The USA doesn’t control anything on the ground, yet they’re talking as if it’s a done deal and that they can just walk in and take over.

    I also wouldn’t want to be a us oil company employee that gets send over to Venezuela. Even if the USA somehow manages to take control of the oil fields, there’s likely to be a lot of sabotage and guerilla attacks.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Yep. The US can’t exert real control without boots on the ground. Boots who would, once again, find themselves fighting angry, and well armed, citizens.