NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/05/01/bolivia.gas.ap/index.html

Communism is alive and well. Now where are our gulags?

I really don't care. This has almost no chance at all of affecting me in any significant way.

To anyone who manages to wrangle up some false outrage, you probably aren’t Bolivian so STFU!

:D :D Yeah ! Hurrah for Morales ! :fluffle: And viva ALBA !

Communism is alive and well. Now where are our gulags?hmm, yes of course.. Wanting to provide for one's people obviously means you want to lock them all up and turn your country into a stalinist dictatorship. It must have nothing to do with not letting foreign companies steal (cq 'buy' at bargain price) the few natural resources you have..

I'm not surprised.

:D :D Yeah ! Hurrah for Morales ! :fluffle: And viva ALBA !

The band that did "Dancing Queen"?

Excellent. Parasitism is not a decent economic system.

The band that did "Dancing Queen"?

No, "Alternativa Bolivariana para América" ("alba" also meaning "dawn" in spanish), or "Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas".

No, "Alternativa Bolivariana para América" ("alba" also meaning "dawn" in spanish), or "Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas".

Are they a paramilitary group or a political party, or some of each?

Well, let's hope that they have decent managers to run the firms. My guess is that the answer is 'no'.

And I like Morales.

Well, let's hope that they have decent managers to run the firms. My guess is that the answer is 'no'.

And I like Morales.

You like Hugo Chavez

You like Fidel for life too.

Go figure.

Who owned the gas industry before this nationalisation?

Are they a paramilitary group or a political party, or some of each?

ALBA is an agrement between countries, for now Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba, but opened to all South American countries (and some Sandinistas cities of Nicaragua signed agrements with Venezuela within the framework of ALBA, for example), an alternative to USA-supported ALCA (WTO-like free-trade agrement). ALBA is about promoting cooperation between countries, and not competition; ALBA is about "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" while ALCA is about "free for all law of the jungle".

You like Hugo Chavez

You like Fidel for life too.

Go figure.
In fact, I also love Lenin, and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot. Hell, I even like Kilobugya, and he told me that people like me need to be put in chains!

Sevenglasses']Who owned the gas industry before this nationalisation?

Transnational corporations, like Total, Exxon, ...

Hell, I even like Kilobugya, and he told me that people like me need to be put in chains!

Me ? I never told to put people in chains...

Transnational corporations, like Total, Exxon, ...
The problem is just that an oil industry doesn't just appear out of nothing. It's not a natural resource...oil is, but making money with oil (and Bolivia doesn't have that huge amounts) requires expertise and skill.

TotalFinElf, Exxon and all the others have that expertise and that skill, and that's why they are able to go into Bolivia and turn an unexplored piece of rock into an oil industry. Unless the Bolivian government has that sort of expertise and skill ready on hand, the place will naturally gravitate back to its original state...

Me ? I never told to put people in chains...
Well, not in that language, no. But you did tell me that people like me need to be held back to prevent us from harming others by buying nice cars.

ALBA is an agrement between countries, for now Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba, but opened to all South American countries (and some Sandinistas cities of Nicaragua signed agrements with Venezuela within the framework of ALBA, for example), an alternative to USA-supported ALCA (WTO-like free-trade agrement). ALBA is about promoting cooperation between countries, and not competition; ALBA is about "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" while ALCA is about "free for all law of the jungle".

Could South America take it further, move towards some kind of more formalized union, like Europe?

In fact, I also love Lenin, and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot. Hell, I even like Kilobugya, and he told me that people like me need to be put in chains!

Quote:
Originally Posted by La Habana Cuba
You like Hugo Chavez

You like Fidel for life too.

Go figure.

Your post speaks for itself Neu Leonstein.

The problem is just that an oil industry doesn't just appear out of nothing. It's not a natural resource...oil is, but making money with oil (and Bolivia doesn't have that huge amounts) requires expertise and skill.

TotalFinElf, Exxon and all the others have that expertise and that skill, and that's why they are able to go into Bolivia and turn an unexplored piece of rock into an oil industry. Unless the Bolivian government has that sort of expertise and skill ready on hand, the place will naturally gravitate back to its original state...

Morales want to negociate new contracts with the companies, in which the state receives a decent share, and in which the state remains the owner of the oil. If they refused to, well, PDVSA has the expertise... if the big corporations refuse, all fine, it'll only strengthen the ties inside ALBA.

Well, not in that language, no. But you did tell me that people like me need to be held back to prevent us from harming others by buying nice cars.

Which doesn't need any chains or jail, changing the structure of the economical system to prevent you from being able to use it to harm others doesn't mean coercing you - it's just removing from you the possibility to coerce others ;)

Could South America take it further, move towards some kind of more formalized union, like Europe?

That's one of the goal of Chavez, and I guess Morales isn't opposite to it either. Not like EU, because EU is a neoliberal union, but South American integration is a major goal of the "bolivarian revolution", as it was for Bolivar in his time.

The new Constitution of Venezuela (from 1999) even acknoweldge the possibility to have a common currency inside (part of) South America.

That's one of the goal of Chavez, and I guess Morales isn't opposite to it either. Not like EU, because EU is a neoliberal union, but South American integration is a major goal of the "bolivarian revolution", as it was for Bolivar in his time.

The new Constitution of Venezuela (from 1999) even acknoweldge the possibility to have a common currency inside (part of) South America.

Sorry, I went to a school where Simon Bolivar was a third baseman for the Yankees in the 1970's...

Your post speaks for itself Neu Leonstein.
As does your misinterpretation of it.

If they refused to, well, PDVSA has the expertise... if the big corporations refuse, all fine, it'll only strengthen the ties inside ALBA.
Let's hope they can manage it. I don't need (see how I just justified everything I could possibly say by claiming it to be "need"?) to pay even more for petrol to enter all those evil capitalist pursuits. Like delivering pizza to finance my life.

Which doesn't need any chains or jail, changing the structure of the economical system to prevent you from being able to use it to harm others doesn't mean coercing you - it's just removing from you the possibility to coerce others ;)
It's mental chains, isn't it. If I am more able than my neighbour, yet you force me to hold myself back (which is exactly what I would do if I had no prospect of getting rewarded for my efforts) - then you tie me down. It's like tying a rock to my foot, and then asking me to swim the lake and save you.

It's mental chains, isn't it. If I am more able than my neighbour, yet you force me to hold myself back (which is exactly what I would do if I had no prospect of getting rewarded for my efforts) - then you tie me down.

Of course not. If you are more "able" than your neighbour, you're already luckier than them, and will already have an easier life. Why should we make it even more easier, at the expense of making their own even harder ? That would be really unfair.

But I won't force you to hold yourself back - quite the opposite, I would encourage you to do what you can do and do it the best way possible. If you blackmail the society by refusing to use your skills unless we reward you more than we would reward your neighbour, then you're the one restraining yourself. Feel free to blackmail us. We will refuse to let this blackmail coerce us. That's all.

It's like tying a rock to my foot, and then asking me to swim the lake and save you.

Not at all. It's like if two people jump in the lake to try to save me, but one is a better swimmer than the other, I'll reward both for risking their lives to try to save me, and not only the one who reached me first because he's a better swimmer.

Of course not. If you are more "able" than your neighbour, you're already luckier than them, and will already have an easier life.
You know, with "able", I really mean "willing to do the best I can". Most people never do that.

Why should we make it even more easier, at the expense of making their own even harder ? That would be really unfair.
I'm not asking this "we"-entity to make anything easy or hard for me. I'm only asking to only have to be concerned with myself and the people around me. And if I wish to help the people around me without gaining myself, I will do so. And if I wish to help people I have never seen or heard, I will do so.

Feel free to blackmail us. We will refuse to let this blackmail coerce us. That's all.
You know that the world depends on people doing their best, right? You know that without things being created, things can't be redistributed, right? You know that your entire world view depends on a world that people who think like me created for you, right?

It's important for you to understand that I am not talking for myself here. I will use myself as a metaphor occasionally - but to me, this discussion has only value if it can help you. Your kind holds no power anymore in this world. Morales, and Chavez and all their friends will take what can be taken and redistribute it (after taking their cut). And then there will be nothing left, and freedom has to return, one way or another.

I'm talking about you. Your brain, your dreams, your wishes and desires. Your life.
What will you do with your life? How can you live your life against me, instead of for yourself?
No one but yourself is holding you back. You can be as poor as you want, it cannot hold back a determined mind. It will not hold me back, I guarantee you that.
And if I can do it, then why can't everyone else?

Not at all. It's like if two people jump in the lake to try to save me, but one is a better swimmer than the other, I'll reward both for risking their lives to try to save me, and not only the one who reached me first because he's a better swimmer.
It's quite a simple concept, really.

The poor and the needy are there to be saved. You have two choices to "apply" human excellence, which will always ultimately also help the poor and needy.

You can either let it run free and wait for its positive effects to reach the poor and needy, or you can steal human excellence and destroy it, and give a tiny fraction of it away to the poor and the needy, who remain poor and needy as soon as your loot has run out.

You know, with "able", I really mean "willing to do the best I can".

And how do you tell the two apart, by looking at the results, as you do ?

Most people never do that.

That's the fault of the society which rewards egoism.


I'm not asking this "we"-entity to make anything easy or hard for me. I'm only asking to only have to be concerned with myself and the people around me.

Since most of what you do have consequences on others, and in economics, nearly everything you do have consequences on others, sometimes much more consequences on others than it has on yourself, you cannot ask the society to not be concerned with yourself.

And if I wish to help the people around me without gaining myself, I will do so. And if I wish to help people I have never seen or heard, I will do so.

So we have nice, generous, helping people who do the dirty work, and lazy egoistic people who just look at them doing ? That's definitely unfair. Your laissez-faire attitude only means that those who use their energy and time only for themselves will have better living conditions than those who use their energy and time to make life of others better... isn't that a tiny bit unfair ?

You know that the world depends on people doing their best, right?

Doing their best for WHAT ? That's the question. If it's doing their best for themselves without any consideration for others, then no, because most of those people are the parasite of the society - be it the crime lords, the weapon sellers, ...

You know that without things being created, things can't be redistributed, right? You know that your entire world view depends on a world that people who think like me created for you, right?

The world was, hopefully, not created by people who think like you ;)

It's important for you to understand that I am not talking for myself here. I will use myself as a metaphor occasionally - but to me, this discussion has only value if it can help you. Your kind holds no power anymore in this world. Morales, and Chavez and all their friends will take what can be taken and redistribute it (after taking their cut). And then there will be nothing left, and freedom has to return, one way or another.

A more fair society creates MORE wealth than an unfair society. The social system created in Europe after WW2 played a HUGE role in the speed at which Europe recovered from the ruins, and so on. Your arguments is just empty rethoric. When Chavez takes the land from the big land owners and give it back to peasants, he allows peasants to create wealth, something that was not possible before. When he spends oil money on education people, he enables them to produce more later on. Redistribution enables the economy to work much better.

I'm talking about you. Your brain, your dreams, your wishes and desires. Your life.
What will you do with your life? How can you live your life against me, instead of for yourself?

I do not live my life against you, nor for myself. I live my life WITH my fellow human beings. That's the difference between capitalism and communism, as Bretch said: "As long as it'll be your or me, and not you and me; as long as it'll be going farther than you, and not going farther together; there will be wars. As long as there will be capitalism, there will be wars". He gave a very wise view on the core difference between the two systems.

No one but yourself is holding you back. You can be as poor as you want, it cannot hold back a determined mind. It will not hold me back, I guarantee you that.

The ecnomical system is holding back more than half of the world population. Oh, myself, I'm lucky. Son of teachers, good diplomas, never known poverty, ... sure, I could live happily within capitalism. But well, I also have a heart, I do feel compassion for my bretheren, I do feel myself part of humanity, and not just a lone animal. So I struggle to help my bretheren, to build a system based on cooperation and not competition.

Nothing is holding me back from being a selfish bastard, selling crappy bugged proprietary software and making a lot of money. Nothing except my morality, my ideal, my love for my human brothers.

The poor and the needy are there to be saved.

There are to be freed from exploitation, first of all.

You have two choices to "apply" human excellence, which will always ultimately also help the poor and needy.

You can either let it run free and wait for its positive effects to reach the poor and needy, or you can steal human excellence and destroy it, and give a tiny fraction of it away to the poor and the needy, who remain poor and needy as soon as your loot has run out.

A good mean to reach a bad purpose is worst than a bad mean to reach a good purpose.

You want to unleach "human excelllence" in a selfish way. We know where it leads: to wars, to crime lords, to misery, to inequality. Look at Bill Gates. As a programmer, he's bad. His company, technically, was always way, way behind the "state of the art". But he cheated, he lied, he used heavy marketing, tricky agrements, patent terrorism, ... and he's the richest man of the planet. He did a lot of harm on the computer world, so much harm so what are still struck with a broken architecture that boots in 8-bits real mode in year 2006, so much harm that "crashing", "virus", "bugs" are seen as normal for every computer user. But he's the richest man of the planet.

That's what your system rewards, encourages, and creates.

While Albert Einstein, a firm socialist, revolutionned physics because he was dedicated to humanity. That's how we want to unleash "human excellence". In a constructive way, cooperating with others, for the mutual benefits. Not in a destructive way, where being better than the neighbour is the only option, and where harming your neighbour or cheating is as good as anything else for that purpose.

You like Hugo Chavez

You like Fidel for life too.

Go figure.

Your post speaks for itself Neu Leonstein.

Well that's some random ass people to string together with no connection to the original point. :rolleyes:

I'm sure Hugo and Fidel are quite nice people if you give them a chance. :p

In fact, I also love Lenin, and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot. Hell, I even like Kilobugya, and he told me that people like me need to be put in chains!

What about Honecker?

Oh F*ck. I am against the nationalization of any industry.

ARRRGGGGNNNNN!!!!!!
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I had a bloody huuuge answer to Kilobugya's post...and it got destroyed when my connection gave up the ghost just then!

Okay. I'll answer another time - when I'm over this. :mad:

What about Honecker?
Him too. And Ulbricht.

You like Hugo Chavez

You like Fidel for life too.

Go figure.

There has got to be something against the rules about you bringing up Fidel Castro in every single goddamned thread. We get it. You don't like Castro. Now kindly shut the fuck up about it in threads that have nothing to do with him.

Him too. And Ulbricht.

I suppose you try to refrain from saying that while in eastern Germany, huh?

I suppose you try to refrain from saying that while in eastern Germany, huh?
Pfff...they'd bark at me for being an arrogant Westerner with all my neoliberalism and locust investors.
They can have their respect and tolerance and working "together, not against each other" back, for all I care right now.

F*cking Internet Connection.

Sevenglasses']Who owned the gas industry before this nationalisation?
Brazilian "Petrobras", Spanish-argentinian "Repsol YPF", British "British Gas" og "British Petroleum", French "Total" and the American "Exxon Mobil Corporation" were/are supposedly the largest companies involved in the industry in Bolivia.

ARRRGGGGNNNNN!!!!!!
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I had a bloody huuuge answer to Kilobugya's post...and it got destroyed when my connection gave up the ghost just then!

Okay. I'll answer another time - when I'm over this. :mad:

Eeeek :/ It already happened to me, I know the feeling :( I write long replies in a text editor, now...

I'm sincerely sorry for you (even if your post was against mine ;) )

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/05/01/bolivia.gas.ap/index.html

Communism is alive and well. Now where are our gulags?
:rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/05/01/bolivia.gas.ap/index.html

Communism is alive and well. Now where are our gulags?
I think Amnesty said they found them on Guantánamo...

There has got to be something against the rules about you bringing up Fidel Castro in every single goddamned thread. We get it. You don't like Castro. Now kindly shut the fuck up about it in threads that have nothing to do with him.
Something like a corollary to the Red Arrow cut and paste spam rule? Or would this be an example of a Carribbean Godwin?

:rolleyes:
well said!

I think Amnesty said they found them on Guantánamo...
That's different. Those are Freedom gulags!

I think Amnesty said they found them on Guantánamo...
The irony being that they had to willfully ignore the prisons Fidel has set up in order to even begin to consider guantanamo a gulag.

As a side note, I'm all for sending in a bunch of mercs with the companies and dismantling/destroying all of the equipment owned by the companies in question. Then withdrawing and making a public neener neener neener statement and watch bolivia's oil production stall and their country spiral into debt.

The irony being that they had to willfully ignore the prisons Fidel has set up in order to even begin to consider guantanamo a gulag.

As a side note, I'm all for sending in a bunch of mercs with the companies and dismantling/destroying all of the equipment owned by the companies in question. Then withdrawing and making a public neener neener neener statement and watch bolivia's oil production stall and their country spiral into debt.Bit late for that. Most of production facilities are already occupied by Bolivan soldiers.

Me, personally, well I'm not too concerned. I just hope that the production facilities are evaluated fairly and that the companies recieve the amount appropriate to selling a 51% stake.

The two cases in which the companies will only get to keep 18% of the gas that it is produced seems a bit unfair though. As for the rest, 40% seems alright, slightly unfair, but alright.

Hopefully the extra cash will be used wisely in improving the social conditions in Boliva.

Doesn't sound like there will be anything wrong with this nationalisation. Sounds like things will stay exactly the same as they are except that the Bolvian government gets more gas and can veto any decision made by the company.

The irony being that they had to willfully ignore the prisons Fidel has set up in order to even begin to consider guantanamo a gulag.

Maybe Amnesty International doesn't call them gulags specifically, but they certainly aren't ignoring Cuba's human rights record. (http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/cub-summary-eng) But hey, never let facts get in the way of smacking the left, huh?

I suppose you try to refrain from saying that while in eastern Germany, huh?Why? Is there something that would happen if you did? I happen to live in eastern Germany and I can't think of anything.

It's about time someone put a halt to the unpunnished foreign exploitation of that nation's natural resources.

You like Hugo Chavez

You like Fidel for life too.

Go figure.
Better Fidel than Batista or any of his elite... Yay for Sdaeriji!

Yay for this too. Notice that he is not telling the companies, "Get out", but rather, "Give us a fair deal or get out." Which works out well for everyone. Apart from anyone who thinks that it's fair that companies like BP etc should be making $12bn profit from taking gas out very cheaply and selling it dearly...

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/05/01/bolivia.gas.ap/index.html

Communism is alive and well. Now where are our gulags?
All of the idealistic commies on the forums are happy about this, though mostly because it means someone's using their flawed system.

That said, considering Bolivia's financial state, it makes sense to do this to help protect what little they have. I hardly agree with the methods in doing so, but at least they are doing something, unlike our own government which just gives lip service to the thought of oil preservation while simultaneously continuing to use excessive amounts for everything.

Hopefully the extra cash will be used wisely in improving the social conditions in Boliva.

Doesn't sound like there will be anything wrong with this nationalisation. Sounds like things will stay exactly the same as they are except that the Bolvian government gets more gas and can veto any decision made by the company.

Socialism is why the current Bolivian government got elected. And I'm quite sure that the people will be helped.

Anyway, I'm quite in favour of this nationalisation, I'm just a bit worried about the reactions from people like the USA. Hopefully this act won't just be the catalyst that starts a US rampage in South America, so that they can take care of Chavez at the same time, and call him "collateral damage" or whatever.

All of the idealistic commies on the forums are happy about this, though mostly because it means someone's using their flawed system.

That said, considering Bolivia's financial state, it makes sense to do this to help protect what little they have. I hardly agree with the methods in doing so, but at least they are doing something, unlike our own government which just gives lip service to the thought of oil preservation while simultaneously continuing to use excessive amounts for everything.
And all the idealistic righties are saddened by it... :p

However, it's nice that you're not condemning this out of hand and not denouncing it as bad just because it is socialist (despite, of course, the obligatory anti-communist statement).

And all the idealistic righties are saddened by it... :p

However, it's nice that you're not condemning this out of hand and not denouncing it as bad just because it is socialist (despite, of course, the obligatory anti-communist statement).
I'm a Libertarian, so wouldn't I equate as some kind of confused centrist under the American definition of right and left? :confused:

And of course I'm not going to denounce it out of hand. They do need to protect their natural resources, and they are doing it in the way they feel is right. I hardly agree with the methods. There are probably better ways to do it. But, in the end, it needs to be done in some way and it is their decision to make. Who am I to tell them any differently?

Socialism is why the current Bolivian government got elected. And I'm quite sure that the people will be helped.

Anyway, I'm quite in favour of this nationalisation, I'm just a bit worried about the reactions from people like the USA. Hopefully this act won't just be the catalyst that starts a US rampage in South America, so that they can take care of Chavez at the same time, and call him "collateral damage" or whatever.I used 'wisely' as a qualifying term. I know it will be spent trying to improve social conditions, but that doesn't mean it will automaticallly be effective.

Us attention is currently focused on Iran. I doubt they will try to force Boliva to privatise the industry militarily, though Morales might be wise to pay extra attention to his personal security.

I used 'wisely' as a qualifying term. I know it will be spent trying to improve social conditions, but that doesn't mean it will automaticallly be effective.

Looking at the agrement made with Cuba (gas and soja in exchange for doctors and teachers), a huge part of it will be effective: teaching and curing the population is always good, and will have very positive long term consequences.

Us attention is currently focused on Iran. I doubt they will try to force Boliva to privatise the industry militarily, though Morales might be wise to pay extra attention to his personal security.

I would be him, I would have Cuban bodyguards, like Chavez has. They managed to protect Castro for 50 years against USA, they are not too bad ;)

I'm a Libertarian, so wouldn't I equate as some kind of confused centrist under the American definition of right and left? :confused:

And of course I'm not going to denounce it out of hand. They do need to protect their natural resources, and they are doing it in the way they feel is right. I hardly agree with the methods. There are probably better ways to do it. But, in the end, it needs to be done in some way and it is their decision to make. Who am I to tell them any differently?
Sorry, I got the impression you were more of a righty. Libertarian is so hard to define. With capitalism, it's the hard-right, and with communism it's the hard-left (at least economically). I think. My political philosophy is not so hot. Come back to me when I'm finished revision for my exams and I might have a better idea...

Sorry, I got the impression you were more of a righty. Libertarian is so hard to define. With capitalism, it's the hard-right, and with communism it's the hard-left (at least economically). I think. My political philosophy is not so hot. Come back to me when I'm finished revision for my exams and I might have a better idea...

"American" Libertarians are right-wingers. It's not really hard to define at all, what is commonly defined as "libertarianism" in the US is very much in favour of the "free market" and are thus on the right. The fact that they are also socially libertarian in addition to being economically liberal doesn't change that, it just means they're socially libertarian right-wingers.

The problem is just that an oil industry doesn't just appear out of nothing. It's not a natural resource...oil is, but making money with oil (and Bolivia doesn't have that huge amounts) requires expertise and skill.

TotalFinElf, Exxon and all the others have that expertise and that skill, and that's why they are able to go into Bolivia and turn an unexplored piece of rock into an oil industry. Unless the Bolivian government has that sort of expertise and skill ready on hand, the place will naturally gravitate back to its original state...
The government has given the foreign oil companies the opportunity to accept renegotiated contracts, as Venezuela did earlier. Very few oil companies refused that offer, because they know the alternative - expropriation and sale of those fields to China, India, Russia, etc. Which certainly do have the skill and experience, and are in sufficient need of tradable energy to accept a higher rate of tax.

The Western oil companies are now finding that their old argument is no longer valid. They need the third world more than it needs them, because now there are non-Western transnational buyers competing in the market, and offering a more flexible approach to coexisting with the prevailing powers.

EDIT: And that's what my new sig is all about. Adapt or die. :D

In every country where commodity production has been nationalized that production has suffered from lack of innovation, over production, poor distribution and horribly bad resource management. The problem in poor commodity producing nations is not capitalism or the free market. It is structural. It is lasting oligarchies and political corruption. I didn't see Scottish people living like Mexicans when the North Sea went into production and Mexico has far more oil and gas resources.

This is an absolutely horrible idea that could seriously harm Bolivia economically in both the short and long term.. Not only does it drive out foreign investment and make the country less attractive to investors, but it also increases the amount of corruption and incompetence in the sector and greatly reduces efficiency. This reduces jobs, economic growth, and the ability of government to diversify away from energy and to increase overall investment in the country...after all, who wants to invest in a nation where the government can steal your property at will?

Furthermore, the Bolivian state-owned company has no experienced personnel and lacks the amount of capital and revenue necessary to maintain and expand production. The result will be falling production, declining infrastructure, falling revenue, and corruption. I'm looking at the history of state-owned oil/gas in Mexico, the USSR, and the Middle East, and all I see is a system that creates corruption, crime, pollution and institutionalizes poverty in order to maintain its hold on resources. State owned companies have failed before and they will do so again in Bolivia...the question is how fast and how severe the failiure will be.

High gas prices are great for producers, but if you're not producing then they are just going to be wasted...even worse, you might have to actually import energy and resources making the higher prices hurt rather than help.

I'm looking at the history of state-owned oil/gas in Mexico, the USSR, and the Middle East, and all I see is a system that creates corruption, crime, pollution and institutionalizes poverty in order to maintain its hold on resources.
Eh, private companies are the same.

Eh, private companies are the same.

But the government can do something about oil companies' abuses if they are in the private sector and it is very difficult for oil companies to cover up their abuses; the US and Europe do pursue cases against companies that violate the law. Plus, there are environmental laws and regulations, but in places with state owned companies the laws are flagrantly violated without any fear of punishment because the same people who reap the profits are the ones regulating the companies.

Especially in China or the former USSR, where the government intentionally covered up or tried to cover up (in the case of the recent benzene spill in Harbin) environmental disasters involved with oil and gas production, and many of those problems surfaced later with severe environmental and health damage. The same could very well happen in Bolivia and likely will if they can maintain production.

But the government can do something about oil companies' abuses if they are in the private sector and it is very difficult for oil companies to cover up their abuses; the US and Europe do pursue cases against companies that violate the law. Plus, there are environmental laws and regulations, but in places with state owned companies the laws are flagrantly violated without any fear of punishment because the same people who reap the profits are the ones regulating the companies.
In practice, there is very little governments can do about energy company abuses. Should they make a fraudulent submission to a financial regulator, they will be held accountable. Should they informally request the hire of local death squads or foreign mercenaries, suddenly there are no applicable rules or bodies with juristiction.

Environmental laws only apply in the West, where the energy multinationals operate only a fraction of their business. If there are any environmental laws in Nigeria, they are not adhered to by the foreign multinationals at all. One notable recent example is the Nigerian government complaining about Shell flaring gas - something that is illegal and polluting. Shell is ignoring the complaints. The government, for its part, can do nothing about it. Globally, this level of accountability is the norm.

Especially in China or the former USSR, where the government intentionally covered up or tried to cover up (in the case of the recent benzene spill in Harbin) environmental disasters involved with oil and gas production, and many of those problems surfaced later with severe environmental and health damage. The same could very well happen in Bolivia and likely will if they can maintain production.
Private companies dodge accountability for environmental incidents throughout the world on a regular basis. These are entities with monthly profits bigger than the GDPs of their hosts. Corruption is the norm.

after all, who wants to invest in a nation where the government can steal your property at will?
Every government reserves the right to expropiate your property and pay you whatever it thinks is a fair amount for it. In some countries happens rarely, Bolivia had announced that they would do this and were studying different methods to do it. Of course the private industry had been expecting something, just not so soon. I don't know how the contracts will be renegotiated, but it doesn't seem likely that this will become another Mexico 1938.

By the way, back then Mexico lacked the technical knowledge and even access to parts, but the workers were able to work the equipment, manufacture parts and make repairs, and learn. And that was without the support of a Venezuela or any other country. Bolivians are not stupid either, so I'm pretty sure that even if the foreign companies decide to leave they'll be able to adapt, even better than Mexico did. The only problem Bolivia has is getting the gas out of the country.

And the oil industry in Mexico didn't create corruption. It was already there :(

It is structural. It is lasting oligarchies and political corruption.
And in the case of Bolivia those lasting oligarchies and corruption are supported by foreign gas interests, so cutting up that support is a good idea, in principle.

I didn't see Scottish people living like Mexicans when the North Sea went into production and Mexico has far more oil and gas resources.
There are a few more Mexicans than Scottish. And Mexico is a tad larger than Scotland. Oil in Mexico contributed to an impressive industrial and economic growth through the 40's all the way to the early 80's. In the late 60's it was common to talk about the Mexican miracle and how we could become the next Japan. But it all ended in the 70's when oil prices went up and suddenly the government didn't see a need to invest in any other areas and they started to take all kinds of loans and stealing far too much money. When prices took a dive in the 80's the whole economy and everything that had been achieved before collapsed.

The only problem Bolivia has is getting the gas out of the country.


Which does make it rather strange that they would choose to upset Brazil by their treatment of Petrobras. However as Morales and Lula were to meet today, we will wait and see what the outcome is.

Which does make it rather strange that they would choose to upset Brazil by their treatment of Petrobras. However as Morales and Lula were to meet today, we will wait and see what the outcome is.
Can you imagine, however, the outcry if Bolivia annouced an exception of their policy for Petrobas?

No, they will merely give them a more "fair" price for their interest and everyone will be happy.

Every government reserves the right to expropiate your property and pay you whatever it thinks is a fair amount for it. In some countries happens rarely, Bolivia had announced that they would do this and were studying different methods to do it. Of course the private industry had been expecting something, just not so soon. I don't know how the contracts will be renegotiated, but it doesn't seem likely that this will become another Mexico 1938.

Most of the time, it is expropriated for a fully justified and immediate legal or security reason. Although investment had been frozen for about a year before and the oil companies knew something would happen, what Bolivia did was effectively march in unexpected, steal the property without sufficient priorlegal notice or agreement on compensation and issued an ultimatum that they would seize assets totally in six months if the companies don't agree to new contracts unilaterally decided by Bolivia.

They are using their power to seize assets to extort concessions and pursue ideological aims rather than as a last measure in times of necessity or as punishment for lawbreaking, and that makes investing there extremely unattractive. It's possible that Bolivia may engineer its own economic collapse if it does this; they lack the experience and personnel of Venezuela along with the capital necessary to overcome a drop in private investment.

By the way, back then Mexico lacked the technical knowledge and even access to parts, but the workers were able to work the equipment, manufacture parts and make repairs, and learn. And that was without the support of a Venezuela or any other country. Bolivians are not stupid either, so I'm pretty sure that even if the foreign companies decide to leave they'll be able to adapt, even better than Mexico did. The only problem Bolivia has is getting the gas out of the country.

They have no trained or experienced personnel capable of managing the industry or engineering and maintaining production; even if they could produce an adequate supply of personnel in five years that would be disasterous for their production capability and infrastructure especially with the demanding climate and terrain in Bolivia.

Also, in 1938 the oil industry was a lot less technologically advanced, which meant it was less demanding to provide the technology necessary to produce oil and gas. The same is true with the USSR; they were able to keep up and gain on the West during the 1950's and earlier when manufacturing was much less complex, but were totally unable to make the investments and produce the technology necessary to do the same when higher technology and more complex products were developed ultimately leaving them hopelessly behind in new technology. Mexico's oil industry now is technologically behind that of other private oil-producing nations and is declining fairly rapidly.

No, I'm talking about the Mexican oil industry today. It's in shambles, hobbled by corruption and unable to attract the investment necessary to maintain infrastructure and production. In fact, it's so unreliable now that the Arizona Clean Fuels company would have to get its oil from Canada rather than Mexico even though it's right by the border.

And the oil industry in Mexico didn't create corruption. It was already there :(

Unfortunately...however, in any country that has had, throughout history, a lot of valuable resources but is inexperienced at managing them, corruption will be a problem. That's why the government has to remain out of the industry and instead focus on cracking down on corruption if it can, because otherwise it will likely lead to disaster.

Can you imagine, however, the outcry if Bolivia annouced an exception of their policy for Petrobas?

No, they will merely give them a more "fair" price for their interest and everyone will be happy.

Probably true. As I said, I will wait and see. There have been a lot of recent agreements, some made with Morales, concerning gas pipelines that are to run through Brazil. I can not see him jeopardising these projects right now.

I'm looking at the history of state-owned oil/gas in Mexico, the USSR, and the Middle East, and all I see is a system that creates corruption, crime, pollution and institutionalizes poverty in order to maintain its hold on resources.

Private multinationals do the same things. In developing economies regulation tends to be difficult and corruption rampant, public or private. There are two chief differences:

1. The profits from the industry will be kept within the country, helping the economy, instead of being sent to foreign owners;
2. The profits from the industry will be used, at least theoretically, for the benefit of the people of Bolivia and not for the benefit of foreign investors.

In every country where commodity production has been nationalized that production has suffered from lack of innovation, over production, poor distribution and horribly bad resource management. The problem in poor commodity producing nations is not capitalism or the free market. It is structural. It is lasting oligarchies and political corruption. I didn't see Scottish people living like Mexicans when the North Sea went into production and Mexico has far more oil and gas resources.British Gas was pretty damn effcient. There was innovation, excellent distribution, over production wasn't an issue and great resource management. While prices did fall by about 25% in the 10 years after its privatisation this can probably be attributed to a drop in the prices of fossil fuels by about 30-40%.

Capitalism doesn't seem to great at resource allocation though. About 30% of the developing world's children are underweight, whilst as similar percentage of the developed world's children are overweight and about 10% are obese. Also huge amounts of food are going to waste in the west. It seems like the capitalist system is having trouble getting food to where it is most needed,

No, I'm talking about the Mexican oil industry today. It's in shambles, hobbled by corruption and unable to attract the investment necessary to maintain infrastructure and production. In fact, it's so unreliable now that the Arizona Clean Fuels company would have to get its oil from Canada rather than Mexico even though it's right by the border.

The problem with the Mexican industry is that the government uses it as its piggy banks. Taxes are exhorbitantly high, and have to be paid on the estimates of the yearly sales at the start of each year, before any sales have been made, and it's the Revenue Agency that has the last word on how much that's going to be. The people at Pemex (and they're truly experienced, not to mention ticked off) only present a suggestion, but the government reviews it.

The end result is that Pemex has no money for exploration, expansion or even maintenance, and no one in their right mind would invest under such conditions. The past two or three administration have tried to make changes to the law so that Pemex can be a profitable company again and open the industry to foreign investment, but the issue is so sensitive (stupidly so) that there's almost no hope of doing anything for the foreseeable future.

Believe, those in the oil industry in Mexico know what's going on and what the solution is, but the government doesn't really want to fix it. They'd rather kill the goose of the golden eggs.

"American" Libertarians are right-wingers. It's not really hard to define at all, what is commonly defined as "libertarianism" in the US is very much in favour of the "free market" and are thus on the right. The fact that they are also socially libertarian in addition to being economically liberal doesn't change that, it just means they're socially libertarian right-wingers.
Economically right then, but socially left?

Vetalia, what you're forgetting is that Shell and the like will still do all the producing - Bolivia is nationalising only what the companies will not accept a fair rate for. And, like TG said above, the spare production will be snapped up by China or India or whoever else feels like taking it and paying a little more.
As for your coercion point... World Bank and multinational companies do the same thing almost on a daily basis. One of the reasons most South American countries suffered tremendous economic collapse is due to the World Bank forcing trade liberalisation regimes on countries in return for money they needed to survive.
As for causing a drop in foreign investment, it's possible, but I don't see it being major. Morales is unlikely to nationalise much else (apart from the coca-growing industry, and who is going to care about that. Barring drug lords of course), he's not stupid enough to expropriate everything. So, while obviously foreign investment may drop (assuming that the oil companies won't renegotiate) in the gas extraction sector, investment should stay relatively similar in other sectors, especially as leftist South American states will move in to fill the gap somewhat.

Morales is unlikely to nationalise much else (apart from the coca-growing industry, and who is going to care about that. Barring drug lords of course), he's not stupid enough to expropriate everything.Mr Morales said the gas fields were "just the beginning, because tomorrow it will be the mines, the forest resources and the land".But of course that could just be rhetoric.

Dull, dull, dull. More "Communism".

Every government reserves the right to expropiate your property and pay you whatever it thinks is a fair amount for it. In some countries happens rarely, Bolivia had announced that they would do this and were studying different methods to do it. Of course the private industry had been expecting something, just not so soon. I don't know how the contracts will be renegotiated, but it doesn't seem likely that this will become another Mexico 1938.

By the way, back then Mexico lacked the technical knowledge and even access to parts, but the workers were able to work the equipment, manufacture parts and make repairs, and learn. And that was without the support of a Venezuela or any other country. Bolivians are not stupid either, so I'm pretty sure that even if the foreign companies decide to leave they'll be able to adapt, even better than Mexico did. The only problem Bolivia has is getting the gas out of the country.

And the oil industry in Mexico didn't create corruption. It was already there :(
Best to allow investment from foriegn companies and learn from them and then start your own. Why end up reinventing the wheel? The problem is barriers to market entry set up by oligarchial systems. I've started businesses in the US with no money at all, just know how. In many countries the rich set up barriers that people with little money cannot overcome. This is, of course, by design. I'm all for overthrowing these systems, but they need to be replaced, not with state ownership, but with the right and ability and encouragement for anyone to start bussineses and enter markets.

And in the case of Bolivia those lasting oligarchies and corruption are supported by foreign gas interests, so cutting up that support is a good idea, in principle.Yeah, they can't really go in with armies and overthrow them. They're about making money. They'll deal with whoever is in charge and play by the rules that are there. Trust me, they woudl rather deal with an open and free, prosperous people because there is a lot less risk in that.


There are a few more Mexicans than Scottish. And Mexico is a tad larger than Scotland. Oil in Mexico contributed to an impressive industrial and economic growth through the 40's all the way to the early 80's. In the late 60's it was common to talk about the Mexican miracle and how we could become the next Japan. But it all ended in the 70's when oil prices went up and suddenly the government didn't see a need to invest in any other areas and they started to take all kinds of loans and stealing far too much money. When prices took a dive in the 80's the whole economy and everything that had been achieved before collapsed.
They had the second biggest oil field in the world. If it had not been nationalized and the market and business had been thrown wide open for participation I'll bet there would be a lot of middle class Mexicans by now. Also, the field would probably have lasted longer because long term investment would have been more important than short term profit. As it is you'll have burned through all teh meaningful oil in that field within five years and, despite Pemex's rhetoric, you have nothing to replace it with.

Oh F*ck. I am against the nationalization of any industry.
When will the Polish get over their infatuation with Thatcherite economics?

When will the Polish get over their infatuation with Thatcherite economics?
Why should they?

Maybe Amnesty International doesn't call them gulags specifically, but they certainly aren't ignoring Cuba's human rights record. (http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/cub-summary-eng) But hey, never let facts get in the way of smacking the left, huh?
It's funny that Amnesty is now considered a left-wing organisation.

Why should they?
Because it's naive and reactionary. Obviously Communism was crap, but it's obvious that the only reason they now swing right is because they want to react against that.

Because it's naive and reactionary. Obviously Communism was crap, but it's obvious that the only reason they now swing right is because they want to react against that.
So there is no way they may be swinging right because it can actually bring benefits?

Best to allow investment from foriegn companies and learn from them and then start your own. Why end up reinventing the wheel? The problem is barriers to market entry set up by oligarchial systems. I've started businesses in the US with no money at all, just know how. In many countries the rich set up barriers that people with little money cannot overcome. This is, of course, by design. I'm all for overthrowing these systems, but they need to be replaced, not with state ownership, but with the right and ability and encouragement for anyone to start bussineses and enter markets.
Yup. Conditions in 1938 were very different, though. Up to that time oil companies were paying a very low price for oil (14 centos of peso a barrel, or something like that) and almost nothing in taxes. When Mexico started to introduce labor laws, started to tax the industry and the oil royalties, the companies refused to comply.

The government threatened with expropiation, the companies walked out of the negotiation table and then out of the country believing the industry would collapse without them. The government took over, the workers kept it running and an expropiation plan was agreed. Several billion dollars, I believe, that Mexico paid in period of five years or so.

It was not privatized later because it was felt (not without reason) that the same foreign companies would move in and their governments would pressure to create the same disadvantageous conditions that led to nationalization in the first place. Since then it was been a very touchy issue and that has prevented further reforms, even though the oil industry in Mexico needs urgent reform and openning to private investment.

Yeah, they can't really go in with armies and overthrow them. They're about making money. They'll deal with whoever is in charge and play by the rules that are there. Trust me, they woudl rather deal with an open and free, prosperous people because there is a lot less risk in that.
Thing is Morales has to break the oligarchies first. And for that he needs both the money from gas and popular support. Not an envidiable position and will be very hard to achieve. If nationalization is only partial, a gradual opening later, will be very useful.

They had the second biggest oil field in the world. If it had not been nationalized and the market and business had been thrown wide open for participation I'll bet there would be a lot of middle class Mexicans by now. Also, the field would probably have lasted longer because long term investment would have been more important than short term profit. As it is you'll have burned through all teh meaningful oil in that field within five years and, despite Pemex's rhetoric, you have nothing to replace it with.
Ku Zaap Maloob is said to be the same size, but much deeper. The saddest thing of all is that, even without privatization, the Mexican oilers know all that, and if they had been allowed to manage it, the way they know best, it would have been exploited quite rationally.
The problem, as I said, is that the government considers Pemex its own piggy bank, and the political system rewards very big visible projects over long term strategies. Also, the same oligarchies prevent the rise of other industries and private companies. Lately foreign investment has been favored, but domestice entrepreneurs still get the short end of the stick.

There are many things going wrong with Mexico. Nationalization was needed back in 38, but corruption has kept away the necessary reforms in this and other areas.

Yup. Conditions in 1938 were very different, though. Up to that time oil companies were paying a very low price for oil (14 centos of peso a barrel, or something like that) and almost nothing in taxes. When Mexico started to introduce labor laws, started to tax the industry and the oil royalties, the companies refused to comply.

The government threatened with expropiation, the companies walked out of the negotiation table and then out of the country believing the industry would collapse without them. The government took over, the workers kept it running and an expropiation plan was agreed. Several billion dollars, I believe, that Mexico paid in period of five years or so.

It was not privatized later because it was felt (not without reason) that the same foreign companies would move in and their governments would pressure to create the same disadvantageous conditions that led to nationalization in the first place. Since then it was been a very touchy issue and that has prevented further reforms, even though the oil industry in Mexico needs urgent reform and openning to private investment.
Well, we'll see how long that lasts:
Petroleos Mexicanos, the world´s third-largest oil producer, risks declining output for the first time in seven years unless lawmakers allow for private investment, cutting supplies on the world market as demand increases.
Pemex Chief Executive Officer Luis Ramírez Corzo said Mexico will leave billions of barrels untapped in deep Gulf of Mexico waters and in a costly onshore field without partners to provide technology and share risks. Mexican law allows only Pemex to extract oil and gas and to refine crude, barring companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc from investing in the industry.
link (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/17584.html)

Of course, with depletion rates like the ones being reported now by Pemex, you may not have much of an oil industry in a decade. Cantarell is supposed to fall from something like 3 million barrels/day to 350,000 barrels/day in just the next three years and it is underpinning all of Mexico's production.

It's funny that Amnesty is now considered a left-wing organisation.
why wouldn't they be? helping people isn't a right-wing kindof activity.

why wouldn't they be? helping people isn't a right-wing kindof activity.
Now there you go wrong. When has the Right ever condemned charity? The economic Right at least.

But of course that could just be rhetoric.
Hmm. Missed that. Forest resources and land will have little effect on Western companies, I'd say, because the forests are largely being illegally logged and the land is mostly owned by Bolivian landlords. Mining, now, might be a little more worrying.
As long as he doesn't nationalise too much foreign stuff (and to be honest, I don't think he wants to nationalise anything), it should be ok.
Strangely enough, this has had little effect on natural gas futures - although it is up 5c.

Thing is Morales has to break the oligarchies first. And for that he needs both the money from gas and popular support. Not an envidiable position and will be very hard to achieve. If nationalization is only partial, a gradual opening later, will be very useful.History has shown, even here in the US, that once the government gets their paws on something it is hard to get them to let go.


Ku Zaap Maloob is said to be the same size, but much deeper.
But Mexican reserves are a state secret so we have to take the word of an oil company who just lost their prize posession to mismanagement. You can't expect them to just say, "Welp, sorry. That's all, folks." The industry and futures traders are calling bullshit on that one. I agree. I'll believe there's that much recoverable oil in that field when they open it up to independent audit and they get investors. If there's as much oil there as they say, people will line up to throw their money at it.

The saddest thing of all is that, even without privatization, the Mexican oilers know all that, and if they had been allowed to manage it, the way they know best, it would have been exploited quite rationally.
The problem, as I said, is that the government considers Pemex its own piggy bank, and the political system rewards very big visible projects over long term strategies. Also, the same oligarchies prevent the rise of other industries and private companies. Lately foreign investment has been favored, but domestice entrepreneurs still get the short end of the stick.

There are many things going wrong with Mexico. Nationalization was needed back in 38, but corruption has kept away the necessary reforms in this and other areas.
Exactly. That's why nationalization rarely works. Look what Saddam did to his fields. The companies went in after the invasion with their mouths watering and found water drenched fields spitting out a barrel of water for every barrel of oil and pipelines that were so corroded that explosives weren't necessary to take them down, you could use a plastic spoon. Private companies tend to want to keep their investments in good shape and they also know what they are doing. Governments and oligarchies rarely do.

Hmm. Missed that. Forest resources and land will have little effect on Western companies, I'd say, because the forests are largely being illegally logged and the land is mostly owned by Bolivian landlords. Mining, now, might be a little more worrying.
As long as he doesn't nationalise too much foreign stuff (and to be honest, I don't think he wants to nationalise anything), it should be ok.
Strangely enough, this has had little effect on natural gas futures - although it is up 5c.
5c is considered quite a jump for one day on a commodity that's priced in the $6 to $7 range. Consider that the natural gas season is the northern winter when heating demand is up. Demand is falling right now and inventories are up. Fundamentals say nat gas should be falling.

Now there you go wrong. When has the Right ever condemned charity? The economic Right at least.
the best i've ever heard from the right is programs that pay minimum wage to do tasks no one else wants to, in other words earning charity. i could be wrong about this though, since i doubt bill gates votes democrat.

the best i've ever heard from the right is programs that pay minimum wage to do tasks no one else wants to, in other words earning charity. i could be wrong about this though, since i doubt bill gates votes democrat.
Actually, he does.

Actually, he does.
cool. any examples of billionaires that give heavily to charity and don't associate with the left?

Still, I expected a little more. Though they only control 1% of the world's reserves...
Further information - it's actually only gone up 3c on Nymex, but 14c and 16c on two other exchanges. That's about 2%. And I think today was also very volatile.
So, it does seem to have had quite an effect.

cool. any examples of billionaires that give heavily to charity and don't associate with the left?
I don't know about Billionaires, and I hate to say this because I think he's Darth vader, but Dick Cheney gives a lot to charity.

Still, I expected a little more. Though they only control 1% of the world's reserves...
Further information - it's actually only gone up 3c on Nymex, but 14c and 16c on two other exchanges. That's about 2%. And I think today was also very volatile.
So, it does seem to have had quite an effect.
Well, we'll see what happens when the DOE reports hit tomorrow and Thursday.

Still, I expected a little more. Though they only control 1% of the world's reserves...
Further information - it's actually only gone up 3c on Nymex, but 14c and 16c on two other exchanges. That's about 2%. And I think today was also very volatile.
So, it does seem to have had quite an effect.
Also, remember that nat gas doesn't travel well and North America doesn't have much in the way of LNG capacity so the biggest consumer in the world isn't effected that much.

the best i've ever heard from the right is programs that pay minimum wage to do tasks no one else wants to, in other words earning charity. i could be wrong about this though, since i doubt bill gates votes democrat.
There is no underlying economic principle in right-wing ideology that denies the utility of charity. It is a private form of wealth redistribution. The right tends to oppose statist, involuntary wealth redistribution. I am not sure how your Right in the US views this, but in Europe being right-wing does not preclude giving to charity, or endorsing such donations. Nor do Libertarian economic notions.

I don't know about Billionaires, and I hate to say this because I think he's Darth vader, but Dick Cheney gives a lot to charity.
:eek:

i always view the right as self-centred with their fists tightly clenched over their money. more bias than anything else it seems.

:eek:

i always view the right as self-centred with their fists tightly clenched over their money. more bias than anything else it seems.
Yes, most definitely. Some of them are, but the stereotype is redundant.

:eek:

i always view the right as self-centred with their fists tightly clenched over their money. more bias than anything else it seems.
I think the chief difference is in the charities they choose to give to, not so much in their willingness to give. The right wing here tends to like to give to church based relief organizations while the left likes to give to secular, rights based organizations. Feed the Children vs. Human Rights watch.

Go bolivia!

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/05/01/bolivia.gas.ap/index.html

Communism is alive and well. Now where are our gulags?

For the record in Venezuela they are paying 3 cents a litre. 3 cents! I read the story and I was like WOW

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1146520227008

For the record in Venezuela they are paying 3 cents a litre. 3 cents! I read the story and I was like WOW

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1146520227008
Father forgive them for they know not what they do.


The actual price fo that energy WILL be paid in one way or another.

Little hint for when your logged out while writing huge replies. Just press "Back" so your back at the "reply" you wrote. Then go to "File" and open a new window. Log back in with that window, go back to the thread and press "reply again, Switch to your old window, highlight and copy your huge answer there, then switch back to your new window and "paste" it in. Then submit. Bit long winded but it saves a lot of additional typing.

Little hint for when your logged out while writing huge replies. Just press "Back" so your back at the "reply" you wrote. Then go to "File" and open a new window. Log back in with that window, go back to the thread and press "reply again, Switch to your old window, highlight and copy your huge answer there, then switch back to your new window and "paste" it in. Then submit. Bit long winded but it saves a lot of additional typing.I normally do that, but sometimes when I press back the text box is blank... And it's normally on a huge post... it makes me want to screams that I spent all that effort collating infomation into a concise post only for there to be nothing to show for my troubles. It's at times like that when I seriously consider writing posts in Word or Notepad.

Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
The actual price fo that energy WILL be paid in one way or another.

China had to get rid of its subsidies earlier in the year, and their prices were many times higher than Venezuela's. They're going to be screwed if they can't refine that heavy oil in to gasoline...

Artificially cheap gas leads to waste, pollution, and inevitably higher prices and shortages...just look at Iran.

Isn't there something wrong with the fact that foreign investors, a more or less unaccountable class of people with interests in some ways directly contrary to those of the people of Bolivia, can coerce Morales's democratically-elected government into being nicer to them?

Private multinationals do the same things. In developing economies regulation tends to be difficult and corruption rampant, public or private. There are two chief differences:

1. The profits from the industry will be kept within the country, helping the economy, instead of being sent to foreign owners;
2. The profits from the industry will be used, at least theoretically, for the benefit of the people of Bolivia and not for the benefit of foreign investors.

But more often than not, those profits are siphoned away by corruption and bureaucracy in the national government; although the profits would be leaving the country, they would come back in the form of more investment in the sector to increase and replace production.

Oil companies have a profit margin of around 6-10% at $70/barrel, so that means for every $1.00 in proft, around $0.90-$0.94 cents go back in to the business in some form of investment, and of that a large amount will go back to the nation of production.

Well, we'll see what happens when the DOE reports hit tomorrow and Thursday.

Well, a refinery fire in Italy that processed only 160,000 bpd helped push prices up over $1, so anything even slightly above or below expectations will cause huge volatility in prices. This shows that the market is both very tight and very speculative right now, a potent combination.

Natural gas is deflating pretty heavily; I imagine it will continue to drift down due to slow demand and large inventory builds which bodes well for the summer and hurricane season.

China had to get rid of its subsidies earlier in the year, and their prices were many times higher than Venezuela's. They're going to be screwed if they can't refine that heavy oil in to gasoline...

Artificially cheap gas leads to waste, pollution, and inevitably higher prices and shortages...just look at Iran.

It doesn't seem to be the wisest of policies, no. But under the circumstances, the only just alternative may well be seizing the wealth of Venezuela's elite and using it to aid the poor in a more direct manner, and that would not be good for his life expectancy.

Oil companies have a profit margin of around 6-10% at $70/barrel, so that means for every $1.00 in proft, around $0.90-$0.94 cents go back in to the business in some form of investment, and of that a large amount will go back to the nation of production.

Maybe. That has not been the trend, though; neoliberal schemes in the Third World have tended to result in capital flight. The Bolivian government taking more control over its own country's natural resources is a perfectly legitimate response to such patterns, which, if done competently, will likely have beneficial effects.

It doesn't seem to be the wisest of policies, no. But under the circumstances, the only just alternative may well be seizing the wealth of Venezuela's elite and using it to aid the poor in a more direct manner, and that would not be good for his life expectancy.

A better option is to pursue legal action against those whose wealth was obtained illegally, eliminate taxes on the poor and either increase taxes on oil companies or give them the option of contributing specific amounts to social programs to prevent the higher taxes. Companies will pay higher taxes or make contrbutions if they are confident of their assets remaining secure, but the government has to avoid acting arbitrarily and unevenly against individual companies.

The market should be allowed to work and then the state should regulate the oil companies and tax them fairly to meet its needs and goals. That reduces the risk of corruption and damage that would come from nationalization, provides the needed revenue, and gives the government experience in using the legal system and regulation to achieve its goals; the last one is important if the government is going to be able to responsibly manage its oil wealth.

On a related note, the fuel subsidy should be eliminated at a comfortable to build mass transit and develop alternative fuels, improve the energy efficiency of poor homes, and develop alternative power sources to attract jobs and create a market for high-tech, high education services in Venezuela. That subsidy is costing them, conservatively speaking, $142 million/year and is contributing to pollution and dependence on fossil fuels and will only grow as the number of cars grows and demand rises. It's in the best interests of any oil producer to diversify their own economy away from oil and use revenue from it to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Since Reagan and Thatcher inflicted their ideologies on the world, the IMF and World Bank working on behalf of multi-nationals have used the "liberalisation" of markets as a tool to effectively destroy local economies and asset strip their rescources. They've created poverty in the Third World the like of which has never been seen. If one country has decided to turn round and say "sod you" then good luck to them.

Maybe. That has not been the trend, though; neoliberal schemes in the Third World have tended to result in capital flight. The Bolivian government taking more control over its own country's natural resources is a perfectly legitimate response to such patterns, which, if done competently, will likely have beneficial effects.

But capital flight is a symptom of state mismanagement and instability; by doing this they are likely accelerating capital flight from the region and worsening the situation rather than bettering it. Creating a fair, transparent system to manage and collect oil revenue and then putting it back in to the country would create a much more attractive investment picture than nationalization.

But more often than not, those profits are siphoned away by corruption and bureaucracy in the national government; although the profits would be leaving the country, they would come back in the form of more investment in the sector to increase and replace production.

Oil companies have a profit margin of around 6-10% at $70/barrel, so that means for every $1.00 in proft, around $0.90-$0.94 cents go back in to the business in some form of investment, and of that a large amount will go back to the nation of production.

Yes, because we know that they are too stupid to use that money for themselves, it is much better that we allow Exxon to put it in trust for our little brown brothers.

We've tried neoliberal economics for 25 years now in the Americas. Bolivia has tried neoliberal economics for 25 years now. All that has happened as a result of this shift is, at least for the rest of the Hemisphere (Canada excluded), economic ruination. They've been turned into one-product export machines whose sole object is to pump raw goods into the US, which then turns around and fattens the wallet of the local warlord. The money that we pump into Exxon isn't going to Bolivia; it's being used to buy back shares from overwhelmingly rich American stockholders.

The only people who have truly benefitted from neoliberalism are those rich stockholders and businesses. Everyone else has gotten screwed: Latin Americans have seen their political freedoms squelched and their nations turned into Banana Republics, workers here have seen their union wages undercut by foreign competition, and the world is heading for a cataclysm when Americans can no longer pay for the flood of cheap goods that the global trade imbalance produces. I for one am glad to see that at least someone, somewhere has said enough is enough and done something about it.

A better option is to pursue legal action against those whose wealth was obtained illegally, eliminate taxes on the poor and either increase taxes on oil companies or give them the option of contributing specific amounts to social programs to prevent the higher taxes.

None of which will solve the basic problem of Venezuela's poor being incapable of affording basic necessities.

The market should be allowed to work and then the state should regulate the oil companies and tax them fairly to meet its needs and goals. That reduces the risk of corruption and damage that would come from nationalization, provides the needed revenue, and gives the government experience in using the legal system and regulation to achieve its goals; the last one is important if the government is going to be able to responsibly manage its oil wealth.

And the profits will keep flowing to the rich, the basic oligarchical system remaining unaltered. The government gets lauded for its "moderation," then becomes corrupt and authoritarian to keep the poor majority from sweeping them out of office - again.

It may happen to Lula.

Yes, because we know that they are too stupid to use that money for themselves, it is much better that we allow Exxon to put it in trust for our little brown brothers.

The history of state owned corporations more than confirms that governments are incapable of running their industries effectively and without being bloated by bureaucracy and corruption. The same is true with Boliva or any nation that nationalizes...it's a failed policy meant to appeal to populism rather than responsible economics.

We've tried neoliberal economics for 25 years now in the Americas. Bolivia has tried neoliberal economics for 25 years now. All that has happened as a result of this shift is, at least for the rest of the Hemisphere (Canada excluded), economic ruination. They've been turned into one-product export machines whose sole object is to pump raw goods into the US, which then turns around and fattens the wallet of the local warlord. The money that we pump into Exxon isn't going to Bolivia; it's being used to buy back shares from overwhelmingly rich American stockholders.

Neoliberal economics failed because they were imposed without mature governments capable of keeping the market properly regulated; most of that is the product of the Cold War rather than economics or foreign corporations. Countries that have had more peaceful, stable governments like Canada, the US, and Chile have all succeeded with free market policies...it's the government's mismanagement and irresponsibility that enable companies to abuse the free market, not the free market itself.

Exxon actually doesn't produce a significant amount of oil or gas in Bolivia; it's European producers like Total SA and Brazil's Petrobras that are the main producers in the country. It's also Brazil that gets most of Bolivia's gas, not the US or Europe; this will hurt other South American nations rather than the US or Europe.

The only people who have truly benefitted from neoliberalism are those rich stockholders and businesses. Everyone else has gotten screwed: Latin Americans have seen their political freedoms squelched and their nations turned into Banana Republics, workers here have seen their union wages undercut by foreign competition, and the world is heading for a cataclysm when Americans can no longer pay for the flood of cheap goods that the global trade imbalance produces. I for one am glad to see that at least someone, somewhere has said enough is enough and done something about it.

The trade balance will become equal in the long run; it will not collapse the economy because the money comes back to the US in either FDI, purchases of exports, or through global trade.

Foreign competition is not neoliberalism, it's economic reality. If a nation puts up tariffs and tries to block competition, employment will fall, wages will fall, and the nation will become economically inefficient. Furthermore, nations that have quotas and tariffs put on their goods are actually more profitable due to quota rents, increasing their ability to outmanuvere the domestic industry and steal market share; the decline in the US auto industry during the 1970's is directly related to attempts to put quotas on Japanese cars.

It also reduces domestic employment by eliminating jobs in industries related to imports and exports of goods and reduces global economic stability. The loss of union jobs has been vastly outnumbered by growth in higher paying, higher education jobs that are more productive and specialized than the ones they replaced. The law of comparative advantage inevitably benefits those who allow it to work its course, and those who stand against it suffer economically.

In the US disposable and real income are higher, living standards are higher, employment and productivity are higher and the economy is growing stronger and is more stable now than it was during the era of protectionism. In the world, severe poverty has fallen and growth is accelerating with real income gains in nations that are liberalizing economically. Protectionism failed in the past and it will fail again, and nationalization leads to inevitable instability and economic failure.

None of which will solve the basic problem of Venezuela's poor being incapable of affording basic necessities.

If you take the tax income raised and put it in to the poor areas, it will.

And the profits will keep flowing to the rich, the basic oligarchical system remaining unaltered. The government gets lauded for its "moderation," then becomes corrupt and authoritarian to keep the poor majority from sweeping them out of office - again.

The other option is far worse; authoritarianism and oligarchy are many times more severe if the corporations are the government, and nationalization will cause that to become reality. At least if a democratic government is kept in power it can do something; nationalization is the fastest path to autocracy other than a military coup, although they go hand in hand.

It may happen to Lula.

It may, but that remains to be seen.

I'm not surprised.
Agreed. Expect more, i should think.

If you take the tax income raised and put it in to the poor areas, it will.

Well, I hope so, because I don't think anyone is about to along with my personal preferences. The Right is correct to point out that welfare programs treat the symptom rather than the cause; what they have wrong is the cause.

The other option is far worse; authoritarianism and oligarchy are many times more severe if the corporations are the government, and nationalization will cause that to become reality. At least if a democratic government is kept in power it can do something; nationalization is the fastest path to autocracy other than a military coup, although they go hand in hand.

In Latin America in recent years, the trend has been the exact opposite; the governments that have attempted to force neoliberalism have tended towards authoritarianism, while the ones elected by grass-roots democratic forces, like that of Morales, have adopted left-wing economic policies.

The people there seem to be tired of neoliberalism getting shoved down their throats, and they are much better at figuring out how well off they are than either of us.

nationalization leads to inevitable instability and economic failure.
Tell that to the CEGB. Remember, there will always be exceptions to the rule when the people involved are sufficiently competent.

Trade liberalisation and foreign competition are not magic bullets anyway. It does not matter what the big game is, or what the rules are - those who learn the rules and develop competent strategists will wtfpwn the opposition, no lube. It is why Russia is beating the EU at its own game, using the EU's own rulebooks (and the stuff omitted), and will manipulate its economic and foreign policies for the lifetime of the current generation. It is why the Japanese went from building junk in the 1970s and having no clue about selling the stuff, to driving the US motor industry into bankruptcy because its products are now manifestly superior. It is why Cuba is still alive and kicking in spite of externally-applied forces which would have given most other nations the Easter Island experience. It is why one of the top four port management companies in the world, the largest marine crane company in the world, and the largest shipyards in the world belong to communists. It is why the US IT base is moving to India. It is why one of the world's largest chunks of a certain extremely high-tech industry (commercially sensitive, sorry) got moved from the US to China.

I really am not bothered about South America deciding to say fuck it to the set of principles imposed for a quarter century, and trying something else amongst themselves. There is no reason why they can't win the game the way they wish to play it. The only question is if they master it. I am inclined to give them the chance, and the freedom to decline or ascend by their own efforts. It is none of America's business anyway. Free markets are a double-edged sword. Overseas, innovation happens. Adapt.

That's different. Those are Freedom gulags!
That is soooooo sigged!

Won't be long before Bolivia's economy goes to hell.

Originally posted by Magdha
Won't be long before Bolivia's economy goes to hell.
Yeah, because it was doing so well with the multi-nationals pilfering their rescources.

The history of state owned corporations more than confirms that governments are incapable of running their industries effectively and without being bloated by bureaucracy and corruption. The same is true with Boliva or any nation that nationalizes...it's a failed policy meant to appeal to populism rather than responsible economics.

The history of which state-owned corporations? US power companies, for instance, were far more efficient, less bureaucratic, and more capable before deregulation than after. US HMO's draw off significantly more in bureaucratic overhead than do Medicare. The same is true of state-owned businesses in Latin America prior to 1982 and now: there's a reason why no nation that switched to government healthcare ever went back. Now, maybe you mean "the history of state-owned corporations in countries with one-party systems, like Mexico under the PRI or the Soviet Union". Now, I might tentatively support you if you were saying that (I say tentatively because, whatever you might say about Russia's Five Year Plans, it nevertheless cannot be denied that they did for Russia in about 20 years what it took the US and Britain 250 years to do--hardly a model of inefficiency), but I see no a priori reason to reject the state-owned corporation, only to reject one-party rule.

Furthermore, this may come off as a bit peevish, but I'd kind of like to know what in the hell do you propose as an alternative to bureaucracy? You speak as if bureaucratic organizations were the most antideluvian monstrosities around, but to do so you have to oh-so-casually overlook the fact that governments only became efficient when they adopted the bureaucracy in place of the older feudal style of management. Feudal governments. . .not all that efficient, and early attempts at efficiency, like the Domesday Book in England, seem suspiciously like early attempts at bureaucracy. Bureaucracy made possible conscription. Bureaucracy made possible mass taxation. Bureaucracy, in a word, is what makes the modern nation-state work. So tell me, if they are the model of lumbering incompetence, why is it in 150 years since the emergence of the modern state that not once has it ever been replaced with a more efficient model? Why is it that business, a system founded on maximizing efficiency, replicates this same system of organization? Please, pray tell, because I'd kind of like to know what radical insight you've had, or whether as is more likely you're just spouting bromides.


Neoliberal economics failed because they were imposed without mature governments capable of keeping the market properly regulated; most of that is the product of the Cold War rather than economics or foreign corporations. Countries that have had more peaceful, stable governments like Canada, the US, and Chile have all succeeded with free market policies...it's the government's mismanagement and irresponsibility that enable companies to abuse the free market, not the free market itself.

. . .Rats. You came so close to hitting the mark. You are right that neoliberalism failed because it was imposed without mature governments capable of regulation, but you neglect to mention the crucial point: that is the way the U.S. and Big Business wanted it. You miss the point that the only time the U.S. didn't actually launch a coup on a Latin American nation that tried to set up said mature government was when the Cardenas administration nationalized the oil system in Mexico during the 30's, and the only reason Roosevelt didn't go is because he was distracted by the emerging Nazi state and wanted to ensure a problem-free southern border. Virtually ever other time in the 20th century involved Big Business knocking on the President's door, asking for him to take out uppity locals in the name of anti-communism, and then watching as a coup took down another democratically-elected leftist. The result for Latin America has been, as I've said, a substantial period of economic stagnation, caused not by statism but by its absence.


Exxon actually doesn't produce a significant amount of oil or gas in Bolivia; it's European producers like Total SA and Brazil's Petrobras that are the main producers in the country. It's also Brazil that gets most of Bolivia's gas, not the US or Europe; this will hurt other South American nations rather than the US or Europe.

. . .There are two problems with your assessment: that it's wrong, and that it misses the point. In the first case, you of all people should be aware of how even the hint of global fluctuations in oil supply anywhere spike global shifts in oil price everywhere, because oil prices are determined less by actual supply than by speculation about the future cost of oil. As such, even the threat of decreased supply from Bolivia benefits Exxon, because it allows them to command a higher price from speculators, who translate such costs to the pumps and consumers. The second point is that you are ignoring the thrust of what I'm saying: I'm not trying to debate about whether Exxon controls Bolivian oilfields, but that the practices of companies like Exxon are harmful to countries like Bolivia.



The trade balance will become equal in the long run; it will not collapse the economy because the money comes back to the US in either FDI, purchases of exports, or through global trade.

Foreign competition is not neoliberalism, it's economic reality. If a nation puts up tariffs and tries to block competition, employment will fall, wages will fall, and the nation will become economically inefficient. Furthermore, nations that have quotas and tariffs put on their goods are actually more profitable due to quota rents, increasing their ability to outmanuvere the domestic industry and steal market share; the decline in the US auto industry during the 1970's is directly related to attempts to put quotas on Japanese cars.

It also reduces domestic employment by eliminating jobs in industries related to imports and exports of goods and reduces global economic stability. The loss of union jobs has been vastly outnumbered by growth in higher paying, higher education jobs that are more productive and specialized than the ones they replaced. The law of comparative advantage inevitably benefits those who allow it to work its course, and those who stand against it suffer economically.

In the US disposable and real income are higher, living standards are higher, employment and productivity are higher and the economy is growing stronger and is more stable now than it was during the era of protectionism. In the world, severe poverty has fallen and growth is accelerating with real income gains in nations that are liberalizing economically. Protectionism failed in the past and it will fail again, and nationalization leads to inevitable instability and economic failure.

People have been claiming that the trade balance will even out for 25 years now; instead it has only accelerated. That is because there is no market for the goods China or Malaysia produces in anywhere but the US; by contrast, there is no good that the US produces that can be competitively imported in closed markets like China. Based on the dependency upon imports to meet US consumers needs, the dependency upon US consumers by the export-based economies of the rest of the world, and the skyrocketing debt carried by the average US consumer, I find it virtually impossible to see what you are seeing.

The value of the US minimum wage is 76 percent of what it was in 1979, real income has declined for the past four years, productivity gains are not being translated into higher wages, debt is climbing, the number of people paying for their own healthcare has climbed significantly, the number of uninsured in this country has climbed by five million in the last five years, the value of an average Bush recovery job is $9,000 per year less than the job it replaces. The list goes on and on. How can you look at this and say "We're heading in the right direction?"

The result for Latin America has been, as I've said, a substantial period of economic stagnation, caused not by statism but by its absence.

There has been plenty of statism - statism directed by the rulers against everyone else, in the service of US corporations and their domestic allies. Neoliberalism was imposed on and maintained in Latin America to a considerable degree by force; the poor brown people, after all, were too stupid to know what was good for them, and thus had to be restrained.

It is not at all surprising that populists brought to power by grass-roots movements - Lula, Morales, etc. - receive such a harsh reaction from the alleged lovers of freedom and democracy, and the contrast speaks much of the both of the nature of the sorts of institutions being promoted and of the nature of many of the promoters.

It doesn't seem to be the wisest of policies, no. But under the circumstances, the only just alternative may well be seizing the wealth of Venezuela's elite and using it to aid the poor in a more direct manner, and that would not be good for his life expectancy.
I'm all for that. Maybe they could tax them heavily or pass minimum wage laws, whatever. But allow private investment. Even Mexico, which hasn't allowed private investment in about 60 years, is clamoring for it now. Look what they did with all their oil profits. They had the second largest oil field in the world and the national oil company destroyed that field and now they're fucked.

Petroleos Mexicanos, the world´s third-largest oil producer, risks declining output for the first time in seven years unless lawmakers allow for private investment, cutting supplies on the world market as demand increases.

Pemex Chief Executive Officer Luis Ramírez Corzo said Mexico will leave billions of barrels untapped in deep Gulf of Mexico waters and in a costly onshore field without partners to provide technology and share risks. Mexican law allows only Pemex to extract oil and gas and to refine crude, barring companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc from investing in the industry.

The country since 1979 has pumped the majority of its oil from Cantarell, the world´s second-biggest field by production, and reinvested little on other deposits, Ramírez said. With Cantarell supply declining for the first time this year, Pemex must emulate state-controlled companies such as Norway´s Statoil ASA to drill in more remote areas.
(31 March 2006)

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/17584.html

When I first heard about this I thought it was a right wing beat up. You know, stupid squawkings from someone who thinks that having public schools is "Communistic." But they really have nationalized the gas fields. They really have pissed off Spain and Brazil, two of their biggest friends/trading partners. The national government has now gone back on promises the national government made. They have now lost a great deal of the economically valuable commidity known as trust. This may not end in disaster, but it does look like he wants to pull a Mugabe.

Gasoline is 3 (yes, three) Canadian cents per litre in Venezuela. I don't know how much that is in US cents per gallon, but for comparison's sake - gasoline is currently around 1 dollar per litre in Canada.

How fair is that?

Good for Bolivia. Maybe now Morales can afford to buy a SUIT.

Good for Bolivia. Maybe now Morales can afford to buy a SUIT.Haha! You're just jealous because Morales looks great in that Bolivan flag/sash.

Look, such a cool guy. He's just not intimidated into the western culture of
having to wear a suit. He looks so out of place, it's great.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41161000/jpg/_41161472_051228evo203b.jpg

I think he might be wearing a suit jacket here, but the sash makes up for that.
http://rocko.blogia.com/upload/20060123145758-dibujo.jpg

Good for Bolivia. Maybe now Morales can afford to buy a SUIT.

Ha! I don't respect Morales economic decisions, but I do respect his fashion sense.

Ha! I don't respect Morales economic decisions, but I do respect his fashion sense.
Exactly. I think it is excellent to have an indigenous leader in a country like Bolivia.

He probably has a point too when he asks why there is no value creation in his country, why all the funds go overseas. For the company it makes sense to take the source materials and move them to another location, not so much to the people of the nation that gets 10 bucks for something that ends up being made into 500 dollars in China.

But the point is that the company has just as much right to do what is right for itself as the people of the host country. Deals and trades can be made, but when the government starts forcing people, that's not cool.

yay go bolivia

I hope they manage to do it, it would be nice to have a left wing block in the world (and i've always wanted to live in southamerica)

its cheaper there because they produce it there and also they can only charge that much because that is what people are willing and able to pay.

you see petrol shortages are resonably artificial caused by the fact that companies are going "oooh looks like and oil shortage we'll start charging more as its so rare oooh" which means the price goes up.

in oil producing countries if you do that people get angry and go "what the hell its being produced in this country and we ship off millions of barrels of it every day so we arn't paying that much for it no way" and then nationalise your industry.

When will the Polish get over their infatuation with Thatcherite economics?
what?

Go bolivia!
youre kidding.

Now, maybe you mean "the history of state-owned corporations in countries with one-party systems, like Mexico under the PRI or the Soviet Union". Now, I might tentatively support you if you were saying that (I say tentatively because, whatever you might say about Russia's Five Year Plans, it nevertheless cannot be denied that they did for Russia in about 20 years what it took the US and Britain 250 years to do--hardly a model of inefficiency), but I see no a priori reason to reject the state-owned corporation, only to reject one-party rule.
Slave labour is quite inefficient... While the industrialisation of Russia was quite impressive, don't forget the ten or twenty millions who died. It's probably pretty easy to build an industrial economy if you don't care about killing folk.
But yeah, apart from in one-party systems, state-owned companies don't necesarily mean bad. Up until Ryanair came around, Aer Lingus provided flights as competitively as anyone else. Telecom Eireann's share price dropped to about one third of its original value within a year after privatisation (admittedly analysts said it was slightly overvalued, but not by 200%). And both of these companies had monopolies too.

what?
Thatcherite economies are brilliant for the rich and terrible for everyone else. Read John Pilger's 'Heroes'. Stories of families scavenging on scrap heaps to live, in 1980's BRITAIN. Not the slums of Calcutta or Rio de Janeiro or Johannesburg. Britain.
To be honest, I'd probably almost rather live under a one-party communist system than under a Thatcherite system if I was poor. At least there you're guaranteed a liveable standard of existence, even if it is poor.

Haha! You're just jealous because Morales looks great in that Bolivan flag/sash.

Look, such a cool guy. He's just not intimidated into the western culture of
having to wear a suit. He looks so out of place, it's great.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41161000/jpg/_41161472_051228evo203b.jpg

I think he might be wearing a suit jacket here, but the sash makes up for that.
http://rocko.blogia.com/upload/20060123145758-dibujo.jpg


Seriously, no matter what backwater you come from, if you want to garner any serious respect from your adversaries, you need to look sharp. You think anyone takes Castro seriously in his tired old fatigues?? Please. In that picture, Morales looks like hes there to mow that bastards lawn!

What about this frumpy looking bastard?

http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2308/html/

Its all about the style, baby....:cool:

What about this frumpy looking bastard?

http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2308/html/

Its all about the style, baby....:cool:
He needs a better haircut.

Seriously, no matter what backwater you come from, if you want to garner any serious respect from your adversaries, you need to look sharp. You think anyone takes Castro seriously in his tired old fatigues?? Please. In that picture, Morales looks like hes there to mow that bastards lawn!


Clothes don't give you respect. Power does.

you see petrol shortages are resonably artificial caused by the fact that companies are going "oooh looks like and oil shortage we'll start charging more as its so rare oooh" which means the price goes up.

No they don't.


www.nymex.com

Seriously, no matter what backwater you come from, if you want to garner any serious respect from your adversaries, you need to look sharp. You think anyone takes Castro seriously in his tired old fatigues?? Please. In that picture, Morales looks like hes there to mow that bastards lawn!

What about this frumpy looking bastard?

http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2308/html/

Its all about the style, baby....:cool:Oh my, it looks like the leader of non-western countries have decided that they'd rather do things their own way, instead of following the ideas of western culture.

Ahmadinejad looks kinda snazzy. Sorta smart casual, y'know. The perfect attire to incite a nuclear war in!

Light pink shirts are what every discerning populist warmonger will be wearing when the first Minuteman goes off over Moscow... :p

Morales will learn. He may feel that he has the upper hand at present but, believe me, he will learn.

Morales will learn. He may feel that he has the upper hand at present but, believe me, he will learn.
Learn what? Fashion sense?

Learn what? Fashion sense?
Ha! No. He will learn that he has no power, no control. We will have his industries.

Especially textiles. Good Christ, but that jumper is soooo 2005.

Morales will learn. He may feel that he has the upper hand at present but, believe me, he will learn.

When Bolivia is flooded by EU/US sponsored terrorist death squads?

(Okay, that was a joke, but you get the point.)

When Bolivia is flooded by EU/US sponsored terrorist death squads?

(Okay, that was a joke, but you get the point.)
That was a joke?

Seriously, no matter what backwater you come from, if you want to garner any serious respect from your adversaries, you need to look sharp. You think anyone takes Castro seriously in his tired old fatigues?? Please. In that picture, Morales looks like hes there to mow that bastards lawn!

Its all about the style, baby....:cool:

Yes, but it doesn't have to be WASP values that define style now, does it? Can you see the emporer of Japan dressed in an Armani suit at a formal reception, or how about the Queen of England in a little black dress from Coco Channel?

Ha! No. He will learn that he has no power, no control. We will have his industries.

Especially textiles. Good Christ, but that jumper is soooo 2005.
I can just see it now. A CIA appointed fashion squad raiding his wardrobe.
"This is so passé."
"I can't believe he's wearing this, you guys!"
"Spray, delay, and walk away. Then detonate the tube charges."
Government Spy Agency Eye For The Presidential Guy...

I can just see it now. A CIA appointed fashion squad raiding his wardrobe.
Or better yet, giving him a makeover.

"OK, guys, listen up. We're going to move in and get rid of the hideous beard, Tony is in charge of that and the haircut. Jamie, you have the new clothes. So, are we ready?"
"Yes, ready and fabulous!"

Finally, in Ahmadinejad, we have a proper Bond villain. I mean come on, light pink shirts and cream suits? All the guy needs is a Persian cat to stroke.

Finally, in Ahmadinejad, we have a proper Bond villain. I mean come on, light pink shirts and cream suits? All the guy needs is a Persian cat to stroke.

Well, he IS in Persia, so you're saying all he needs is to get any cat at all, as long as he gets the cat in his country?