NationStates Jolt Archive

http://cnn.com/

Chavez seizes control from big oil

President Hugo Chavez's government took over Venezuela's last remaining privately run oil fields today, intensifying a decisive struggle with big oil over one of the world's most lucrative deposits. The companies giving up control include BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

Happy May Day Exxon & All :D

Do you not understand the implications of this or are you just giving a thumbs up because Chavez insults Bush constantly?

Good luck keeping your infastructure up to date, Hugo.

Do you not understand the implications of this or are you just giving a thumbs up because Chavez insults Bush constantly?

Ocean thinks that Chavez is smart, intelligent, and doing the right thing.

Not really big news. The fact is that these so-called "privately-owned oil fields" have never been privately owned at all. Oil companies everywhere have always acted as government contractors, getting a cut of the profit in exchange for extracting and marketing the government's oil. The very fact that governments everywhere charge "royalties" for oil extraction (and other mineral extraction) shows this. If it were simply a case of an oil company buying the land in which oil can be extracted, all the company would ever have owed is their company taxes.

Now is a good time to open bike shops in Venezuela (unless Chavez has stolen them as well).

Do you not understand the implications of this or..


...are you just giving a thumbs up because Chavez insults Bush constantly?I am just giving a thumbs up because Chavez is constantly on-yo-face. :D :D ;) :D

actually.. I meant to say "on il-Bushio's face".. but whatever... :p

Do you not understand the implications of this or are you just giving a thumbs up because Chavez insults Bush constantly?

Knowing Occean, yeah.

Ocean thinks that Chavez is smart, intelligent, and doing the right thing.No, I think the president we elected is smart, intelligent, and doing the right thing. :D :D ;) :D

and when i say elected... I should say elected by the Republican supremes.

Oil = Evil

Renewable environmental friendly energy sources = Good

Oil in the hands of privately owned companies= Very Evil

Oil in the hands of Chavez= Less Evil

I am just giving a thumbs up because Chavez is constantly on-yo-face. :D :D ;) :D

actually.. I meant to say "on il-Bushio's face".. but whatever... :p
So, with respect to Khadgar's question, that's a yes.

I am just giving a thumbs up because Chavez is constantly on-yo-face. :D :D ;) :D

actually.. I meant to say "on il-Bushio's face".. but whatever... :p

Someone being against someone else that you don't like doesn't make them automatically a great person.

Oil = Evil

Renewable environmental friendly energy sources = Good

Oil in the hands of privately owned companies= Very Evil

Oil in the hands of Chavez= Less Evil

Or, more briefly, "Four legs good, two legs bad!"

Or, more briefly, "Four legs good, two legs bad!"

It may sound stupid but what do you mean?:)

So, with respect to Khadgar's question, that's a yes.The smilyes-o-rama should given yo a hint.. but here is the answers anyways:

#1 Do I love it when Chavez does it in-yo-face to our Dear leader?

A1) of course I do.

#2 Do I like our dear leader?

A2) do I really need to answer?

#3 Would I still like Chavez if Clinton was president. and doing the on-yo-face.?

A3) absolutely.

It may sound stupid but what do you mean?:)

It's been a while but I'm almost certain that's a reference to Animal Farm (http://en.wikipedia.org/Animal_Farm).

HappY May Day :D :D :D

Happy May Day Exxon & All :D

nice

Knowing Occean, yeah.over 13 thousand posts.. and still knows shiite about the Ocean. ;)

Guess you missed Castro...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/01/international/i050940D27.DTL

oh wait... he couldn't make it to May Day celebrations.

Well, it is almost summer, and we're running out of ice....

http://cnn.com/


Happy May Day Exxon & All :D

I always love it when people like you cheer when a government takes over privately owned property using force. It's like people who cheer at a mugging. And then you laughably say "LOL HOW IS THAT, BIG OIL," apparently thinking that a government (aka, Bigger Oil, With Guns) is in some way inherently morally superior to "big oil."

It may sound stupid but what do you mean?

Have you ever read Animal Farm?

You missed an awful lot in your simplistic post.

The first thing you missed is the fundamental reality: these oil fields were never privately owned. They were always government property, the oil companies acted as government contractors, extracting the oil and marketing it, in exchange for a percentage of the profit (determined by the government through the government determining the royalties payable to the government).

The second thing you missed is that Chavez's oil policies (like all his economic policies) have been failures. In the oil area, he has imposed price controls on gasolene, which has meant that oil companies cannot make profit selling gasolene to Venezuelans (because they must charge less than what it costs to extract it). His price controls have not meant that the poor can afford more goods, they have created shortages.

The third thing you missed is that oil companies have managed the state's oil better than the state has managed it.

Chavez is engaging in some pretty short-sighted thinking, he views the oil fields as nothing more than a slush fund, to enable him to buy support. He does not view oil as a business, so infrastructure will be neglected in his drive to extract as much cheap cash from the earth as possible, in order to fund his political "visions".

The smilyes-o-rama should given yo a hint.. but here is the answers anyways:

#1 Do I love it when Chavez does it in-yo-face to our Dear leader?

A1) of course I do.

#2 Do I like our dear leader?

A2) do I really need to answer?

#3 Would I still like Chavez if Clinton was president. and doing the on-yo-face.?

A3) absolutely.

In short, anything goes, as long as it works out as a rebellion against the current president and oil companies.

You know, I used to think you were decent OD. Now you've really gone off the deep end.

Do you not understand the implications of this or are you just giving a thumbs up because Chavez insults Bush constantly?He's giving a thumbs up because he's a fool. I think OD proves that with every moronic post he makes.

I always love it when people like you cheer when a government takes over privately owned property using force. It's like people who cheer at a mugging. And then you laughably say "LOL HOW IS THAT, BIG OIL," apparently thinking that a government (aka, Bigger Oil, With Guns) is in some way inherently morally superior to "big oil."

The part I like is where Ocean thinks that Chavez is sticking it to the global Jewish conspiracy, or that a dictatorship of the proletariat is a happy thing.

these oil fields were never privately owned. They were always government property.
fair enough

The second thing you missed is that Chavez's oil policies (like all his economic policies) have been failures. do you have a non-US source to back up that claim?

The third thing you missed is that oil companies have managed the state's oil better than the state has managed it.do you have a non-US source to back up that claim?

I have a friend who is doing voluntary work in Bolivia (the last 4 years).. where a Chavez-like-gov has already implemented the same Oil policies.. and he says Bolivia gets more money -now- from the oil industry.. the Gov is expending more -now- on health and education.

over 13 thousand posts.. and still knows shiite about the Ocean. ;)

Yeah right, I know plenty about you and your ludicrous views, going about, extracting the most minute bit of an anti-west, anti-US morsel out of any story, and rejoicing whenever some third world nitwit takes another step towards tanking his country's economy.

In short, anything goes, as long as it works out as a rebellion against the current president and oil companies.

You know, I used to think you were decent OD. Now you've really gone off the deep end.the deep end is fun, you should visit sometime. ;)

fair enough

do you have a non-US source to back up that claim?

do you have a non-US source to back up that claim?

I have a friend who is doing voluntary work in Bolivia (the last 4 years).. where a Chavez-like-gov has already implemented the same Oil policies.. and he says Bolivia gets more money -now- from the oil industry.. the Gov is expending more -now- on health and education.

I love how you refuse to accept any US sources regardless of their credibility, yet openly accept the claims of these tin-pot populists from throughout the developing world.

do you have a non-US source to back up that claim?

Had you simply asked me for sources, I would be glad to oblige, but you are not, you are asking me to provide sources knowing full well that you will simply dismiss anything I bring in as not being sufficiently pro-Chavez.

Can you back up the idea that price ceilings lead to something other than shortages?

I have a friend who is doing voluntary work in Bolivia (the last 4 years).. where a Chavez-like-gov has already implemented the same Oil policies.. and he says Bolivia gets more money -now- from the oil industry.. the Gov is expending more -now- on health and education.

Wait a damned minute!

You ask me for sources (and give yourself an excuse to dismiss them out of hand), and then have the gall to suggest that I should be satisfied with an anecdote as evidence enough to totally devastate my argument?!

I've only one word to say to that: bollocks!

Have you ever read Animal Farm?

You missed an awful lot in your simplistic post.

The first thing you missed is the fundamental reality: these oil fields were never privately owned. They were always government property, the oil companies acted as government contractors, extracting the oil and marketing it, in exchange for a percentage of the profit (determined by the government through the government determining the royalties payable to the government).

The second thing you missed is that Chavez's oil policies (like all his economic policies) have been failures. In the oil area, he has imposed price controls on gasolene, which has meant that oil companies cannot make profit selling gasolene to Venezuelans (because they must charge less than what it costs to extract it). His price controls have not meant that the poor can afford more goods, they have created shortages.

The third thing you missed is that oil companies have managed the state's oil better than the state has managed it.

Chavez is engaging in some pretty short-sighted thinking, he views the oil fields as nothing more than a slush fund, to enable him to buy support. He does not view oil as a business, so infrastructure will be neglected in his drive to extract as much cheap cash from the earth as possible, in order to fund his political "visions".

Yeah, I have read Animal Farm, one of the better books I've read actually. My post should be seen in a larger perspective than just Venezuela if it should have any meaning. I wrote that oil companies are evil by which I stand because they care only about money and not about the environment that thay are destroying. I didn't write that Chavez oil policies where good for Venezuela but I said that he's less evil than the oil companies. Even if they are lousy he probably means well while the oil companies only want to profit themselves.

Yeah right, I know plenty about you and your ludicrous views, going about, extracting the most minute bit of an anti-west, anti-US morsel out of any story, and rejoicing whenever some third world nitwit(Chavez) takes another step towards tanking his country's economy.Chavez has managed to invest more in Health and education.
For the last 2 years you (and the others like you) have been proclaiming that Chavez is about to tank his country..

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~scharme/end_is_near.jpg

guess what?

Its not happening.

Yeah, I have read Animal Farm, one of the better books I've read actually. My post should be seen in a larger perspective than just Venezuela if it should have any meaning. I wrote that oil companies are evil by which I stand because they care only about money and not about the environment that thay are destroying. I didn't write that Chavez oil policies where good for Venezuela but I said that he's less evil than the oil companies. Even if they are lousy he probably means well while the oil companies only want to profit themselves.

So, if he means well, and uses the same equipment to pump the same oil out of the ground, and that oil is used to fuel the same SUVs to pollute the same atmosphere, it's all ok because he meant well?

And if he uses the money to buy Russian and Chinese military equipment, that's cool, because he meant well?

ROFLCOPTER.

I wrote that oil companies are evil by which I stand because they care only about money and not about the environment that thay are destroying.

And you think that Chavez cares more about the environment than money?

The only reason to place the oil under direct state management is to increase the amount of money they get out of the oil fields in the short term.

He does not mean well, his motive is to get more money so as to prop up his regime, and that of Castro and other extreme-leftists in Latin America, by buying support at home, and funding his allies abroad.

I would also suggest that Chavez will let long-term investment lapse in favour of short term profit, which will more than likely exacerbate any existing environmental problems through inefficiency.

The part I like is where Ocean thinks that Chavez is sticking it to the global Jewish conspiracy, or that a dictatorship of the proletariat is a happy thing.

Yeah, I used to doubt Ocean's anti-semitism, but one time in a thread he made he brought up the Jewish holocaust (something like, "Oh, you care when the Jewish holocaust, but not..." da da da) for no apparent reason. I asked him why, he evaded, I asked him again, he evaded. I think he was afraid that he'd get too much shit if he just said, "Hey, I hate and am obsessed with Jews!"

Oh well.

Yeah, I used to doubt Ocean's anti-semitism, but one time in a thread he made he brought up the Jewish holocaust (something like, "Oh, you care when the Jewish holocaust, but not..." da da da) for no apparent reason. I asked him why, he evaded, I asked him again, he evaded. I think he was afraid that he'd get too much shit if he just said, "Hey, I hate and am obsessed with Jews!"

Oh well.

I remember that thread, it was about Ethiopia I believe. I don't think it even had anything to do with the holocaust but he just came completely out of right field with the accusation that if it was a Jewish genocide we'd be up in arms.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12536028&postcount=11

I love how you refuse to accept any US sources regardless of their credibility, yet openly accept the claims of these tin-pot populists from throughout the developing world.

I'd like a Bolivian source on that,please.




I wonder how many people and their families are employed/insured by the terrible big oil companies? How many mortgage and car payments and groceries are being bought with big oil company paychecks?

So, if he means well, and uses the same equipment to pump the same oil out of the ground, and that oil is used to fuel the same SUVs to pollute the same atmosphere, it's all ok because he meant well?he Venezuelan Gov use the Oil profits to fund Health, Education, Infrastructure and other Gov operating expenses.


And if he uses the money to buy Russian and Chinese military equipment...I see. You would approve of him.. IF he accepted to Buy US weapons.

he Venezuelan Gov use the Oil profits to fund Health, Education, Infrastructure and other Gov operating expenses.


You have no proof of that. His weapon sales, however, are a matter of public record.

I see. You would approve of him.. IF he accepted to Buy US weapons.

Link to where I said that.

other Gov operating expenses.

A pathetic euphamism for arms, and buying political support.

I am still waiting for a source more substantial than an anecdote that is probably false. If you want to make an argument, don't fall behind worthless crap like "my friend said this", and then insist that I come up to your absurd standards for sources.

I wonder how many people and their families are employed/insured by the terrible big oil companies? How many mortgage and car payments and groceries are being bought with big oil company paychecks?my guess is:

About the same number many people( and their families) for Nationalized Oil industry.

Does anyone think that Jessica Alba in her role in Sin City was waaay hot?

Going AFK for 1 hour
Ill be back

Going AFK for 1 hour
Ill be back

Classic OceanDrive. :eek:

So, if he means well, and uses the same equipment to pump the same oil out of the ground, and that oil is used to fuel the same SUVs to pollute the same atmosphere, it's all ok because he meant well?

And if he uses the money to buy Russian and Chinese military equipment, that's cool, because he meant well?

ROFLCOPTER.

READ MY POST! LESS EVIL =! GOOD. RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES = GOOD! OIL = EVIL!

WHERE DOES IT STAND THAT CHAVEZ = GOOD?

(capitalized letters doesn't mean I'm shouting, just want to make myself clear)

Classic OceanDrive. :eek:

He'll reappear in a day or two, bump this up a couple times, declare victory and be off to troll again.

Death to the Jewish conspiracy!

READ MY POST! LESS EVIL =! GOOD. RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES = GOOD! OIL = EVIL!

WHERE DOES IT STAND THAT CHAVEZ = GOOD?

(capitalized letters doesn't mean I'm shouting, just want to make myself clear)

Sorry, I don't see where he's less evil.

Are the oil companies buying millions of dollars worth of the latest Russian fighter jets?

the deep end is fun, you should visit sometime. ;)

Not when it justifies killings, bombings, and other associated violence.

Chavez has managed to invest more in Health and education.
For the last 2 years you (and the others like you) have been proclaiming that Chavez is about to tank his country..

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~scharme/end_is_near.jpg

guess what?

Its not happening.

That's because macroeconomic trends take extended periods of time to take effect. I'm not concerned about the next two years, or the next five years even; rather, the long term results are where the real damage is going to be done. If Chavez continues down this path, Venezuela will find itself in a very similar situation to Cuba: Totally devoid of economic growth, and trapped in a time period decades earlier.

Further, Chavez has heavily benefited from the continually high oil prices, without which he could not continue to operate like he currently does.

There's a reason he opposes Da Silva's steps to working with the US on ethanol production, because it undermines his petrodollar powerbase.

There's a reason he opposes Da Silva's steps to working with the US on ethanol production, because it undermines his petrodollar powerbase.

When the oil runs out, you'll hear a giant flushing sound.

Other nations largely dependent on oil revenue, regardless of their governments, will also be flushed down the sewer.

Mexico is already in big trouble.

I always love it when people like you cheer when a government takes over privately owned property using force. It's like people who cheer at a mugging. And then you laughably say "LOL HOW IS THAT, BIG OIL," apparently thinking that a government (aka, Bigger Oil, With Guns) is in some way inherently morally superior to "big oil."

I do not believe that he actually understands this. Not to mention, I see a rise in oil prices coming.

I do not believe that he actually understands this. Not to mention, I see a rise in oil prices coming.

Of course, that's what drives the Chavez government: High oil prices.

Again, the situation is more complicated than the OP would have us believe.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/18415992

Chavez demands a 60% stake in the oil companies’ holdings and he may nationalize the field, Regan said. Chavez planned an elaborate ceremony on May Day, the international workers’ holiday, with red-clad oil workers, soldiers and a fly-over by Russian-made fighters.

Chavez wants the companies to remain as minority partners. Both sides are engaged in tough negotiations. The companies appear to be demanding compensation and assurances that future assets won’t be seized.

It remains unclear whether Venezuela has the ability to develop the oil field on its own if the oil companies leave.

The Venezuelan government has taken operational control of the fields. People more versed in business management could probably explain what that means better than I could, but it definitely does not mean nationalisation or expropriation, apparently. More like owning a controlling percentage of the stock.

What I found more interesting was this, from the same link as above:

IMF, World Bank Pullout

On Monday, Chavez said Venezuela will withdraw from Washington-based lending organizations the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, in a symbolic move that distances Chavez from much of the international economic community.

Chavez, who plans to create an alternative lending bank run by South American nations and funded in part with his OPEC nation's high oil revenue, said Venezuela no longer needed the institutions dominated by U.S. "imperialism."

Leaving the IMF and the World Bank would sever ties between the fifth largest oil supplier to the U.S. and the world's leading lenders to emerging nations.

Paid off Venezuela's debts, apparently. This should help Venezuelans, and hopefully other Latin American countries, by reducing its dependence on 'foreign aid' and all the neoliberal economic policies that always go with IMF and World Bank handouts.

Power to the pueblo.

Paid off Venezuela's debts, apparently. This should help Venezuelans, and hopefully other Latin American countries, by reducing its dependence on 'foreign aid' and all the neoliberal economic policies that always go with IMF and World Bank handouts.

Power to the pueblo.

Are you saying that neoliberalism existed in the form of the World Bank and IMF since 1945?

Sorry, I don't see where he's less evil.

Are the oil companies buying millions of dollars worth of the latest Russian fighter jets?

I have a very negative view of oil companies because they don't care about the environment, they only care about their profits. I'm aware that we all depend on oil but if we want to prevent an eventual catastrophy, we must start using renewable energy sources and oil companies are doing everything they can to prevent this.

Are you saying that neoliberalism existed in the form of the World Bank and IMF since 1945?

Do you know what neoliberalism means?

When the oil runs out, you'll hear a giant flushing sound.

Other nations largely dependent on oil revenue, regardless of their governments, will also be flushed down the sewer.

Mexico is already in big trouble.

Mexico had a riot over tortias. And yes, they already are in big trouble and it is oil related as it is drug related to the drug trade.

I'm aware that we all depend on oil but if we want to prevent an eventual catastrophy, we must start using renewable energy sources and oil companies are doing everything they can to prevent this.

I rather agree...in the short term we must start investing in biofuels, which will hopefully reduce our total carbon footprint, and eventually make the transition to other sources of energy, be it wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal or superjesus.

Mexico had a riot over tortias. And yes, they already are in big trouble and it is oil related as it is drug related to the drug trade."Mexico had a riot over tortillas and oil is drug related to the drug trade." ??

like I used to tell Corny.. You better stop eating hot Mexican guacamoles.. they are mucho picante for you. They are messing your brain :D

Even if they are lousy he probably means well while the oil companies only want to profit themselves.

Which is precisely why they're not evil.

It is the selfish pursuit of private profit that is the most moral end one can aim for.

dp

he Venezuelan Gov use the Oil profits to fund Health, Education, Infrastructure and other Gov operating expenses.


In other words, he violates fundamental individual rights in order to enable him to violate even more fundamental individual rights.

I have a very negative view of oil companies because they don't care about the environment, they only care about their profits.

Which is why they are morally superior to you.

Ocean thinks that ...Knowing Occean, yeah. ...OD. Now you've really gone off the deep end.He's giving a thumbs up because he's a fool. I think OD proves that with every moronic post he makes.
The part I like is where Ocean thinks that Chavez is sticking it to the global Jewish conspiracy...Yeah, I used to doubt Ocean's anti-semitism, but one time in a thread he (said) something like, "Oh, you care when its about the Jewish holocaust, but not (when its an African holocaust)... da da da" I remember that thread..
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12536028&postcount=11Classic OceanDrive. :eek:He'll reappear in a day or two, bump this up a couple times, declare victory and be off to troll again.

Death to the Jewish conspiracy!LOL..
I said AFK for 1 hour.. and guess what.. I am back as promised.

You people are focusing too much on the messenger(Occean)..
where it should be about: Chavez, Oil companies, Land confiscation, May Day, etc.

OIL = EVIL!

Keep that in mind when you turn 28 (if you haven't already).

It's the oil (and coal) that fueled the Industrial Revolution that has pushed the average human life span in the Western world past that age.

So once you turn 28, your own life becomes base and evil, according to you.

"All of human progress is due to industrial progress, and it is for this reason that the human lifespan has increased, from 28 years on the average during the stone age to over 72 years today.
So if you are over 28 years of age, my advice is to go out and hug the dirtiest, grimiest smokestack you can find, then go home and get down on your knees and pray to whatever gods you believe in, that those smokestacks keep belching out pollution, because they are the signposts of human progress."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/30/MNGAAJN9JG1.DTL

Mexico only has 10 years of oil left. Then 40 percent of their government's revenue (and a large portion of the Mexican economy) will vanish forever, no matter what they do.

The same thing will happen to Venezuela.

Is Venezuela's oil production rapidly waning? One source reports that the world's fifth largest oil producer is showing signs of a rapid decrease in production, one of the key tenets of the peak oil theory.

Venezuela is buying oil from Russia in order to avoid defaulting on deliveries to clients. The situation raises serious questions about the country's oil production and the future of PDVSA as a major oil producer, and increases the risk to the U.S. oil supply should the country's oil production suddenly plummet.

According to the Financial Times: "Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has struck a $2bn deal to buy about 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Russia until the end of the year. Venezuela has been forced to turn to an outside source to avoid defaulting on contracts with "clients" and "third parties" as it faces a shortfall in production, according to a person familiar with the deal. Venezuela could incur penalties if it fails to meet its supply contracts."

The news has so far been very much inside baseball, as it has not made the mainstream, due to competition from more sensational stories such as the illegal alien marches, and the media's obsession with oil company profits.

But, as these things go, we may be on the verge of a major developing story.

When you think about it, we already know that Venezuela can't meet their contractual obligations for oil delivery. What do you think Chavez's options are if his reserves are only 50% of what he says?

Two possibilities:

First, a massive asset liquidation, including U.S. bonds, and U.S. dollars (and any foreign assets).

Second, is the specter of a Yukos-like nationalization of foreign oil company assets in Venezuela.

Interestingly, this has already come partially true, since Venezuela has recently tightened the screws on foreign oil companies, renegotiating royalty contracts and raising taxes, prompting Exxon Mobil to essentially give up on its Venezuelan stakes, while others have reluctantly gone along.

"Mexico had a riot over tortillas and oil is drug related to the drug trade." ??

like I used to tell Corny.. You better stop eating hot Mexican guacamoles.. they are mucho picante for you. They are messing your brain :D
Corn prices are being artificially inflated by ethanol production and government subsidies which rasies the price of corn tortillas. Not quite sure about the drug trade.

In other words, he violates fundamental individual rights in order to enable him to violate even more fundamental individual rights.

Don't forget that the Venezuelan government is making use of these services to increase reliance on (and therefore trust of) the current government, and, at the same time, implant the seeds of a growing state-security apparatus amongst all elements of society.

There's a good article on this phenomenon in FP lately.

Corn prices are being artificially inflated by ethanol production and government subsidies which rasies the price of corn tortillas. Not quite sure about the drug trade.

Eh, eh, eh! Corn prices are not being "artificially" inflated by the increasing demand for ethanol, rather, they are increasing naturally. Artificial inflation occurs when it is either driven by the actions of the government or of a monopoly.

Eh, eh, eh! Corn prices are not being "artificially" inflated by the increasing demand for ethanol, rather, they are increasing naturally. Artificial inflation occurs when it is either driven by the actions of the government or of a monopoly.
You seem to be missing the government subsidization that I mentioned in my post. Without that, ethanol production from corn would not be profitable and so would not be pursued by the private sector.

Keep that in mind when you turn 28 (if you haven't already).

It's the oil (and coal) that fueled the Industrial Revolution that has pushed the average human life span in the Western world past that age.

So once you turn 28, your own life becomes base and evil, according to you.
And I doubt anyone would deny that, but we now know that the way we use oil and coal is both unsustainable in terms of being a finite resource and unsustainable in terms of its effects on the environment, which I'm sure you're quite well aware of, and will most effect those that have benefited least from the industrial revolution. Whether it's evil or not is irrelevant, but at some point we're going to have to rely on something else for our energy needs. Somehow, though, I doubt that's on Chavez's mind.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/30/MNGAAJN9JG1.DTL

Mexico only has 10 years of oil left. Then 40 percent of their government's revenue (and a large portion of the Mexican economy) will vanish forever, no matter what they do.

The same thing will happen to Venezuela.

Is Venezuela's oil production rapidly waning? One source reports that the world's fifth largest oil producer is showing signs of a rapid decrease in production, one of the key tenets of the peak oil theory.

Venezuela is buying oil from Russia in order to avoid defaulting on deliveries to clients. The situation raises serious questions about the country's oil production and the future of PDVSA as a major oil producer, and increases the risk to the U.S. oil supply should the country's oil production suddenly plummet.

According to the Financial Times: "Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has struck a $2bn deal to buy about 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Russia until the end of the year. Venezuela has been forced to turn to an outside source to avoid defaulting on contracts with "clients" and "third parties" as it faces a shortfall in production, according to a person familiar with the deal. Venezuela could incur penalties if it fails to meet its supply contracts."

The news has so far been very much inside baseball, as it has not made the mainstream, due to competition from more sensational stories such as the illegal alien marches, and the media's obsession with oil company profits.

But, as these things go, we may be on the verge of a major developing story.

You should really quote your sources. Since the actual Financial Times article requires a subscription, I found this article instead which says basically the same thing:
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/04/28/venezuelaoil.shtml

Note: the article says that Venezuela may purchase Russian light crude, but it does not specify whether the Venezuelan government has done so in the year since the article was written.

Note how OD has returned to the thread and refuses to answer any of the dozens of posts trashing his position. He basically is conceding defeat through his actions, but his overly large ego will try to claim victory here.

I've noticed this pattern with every piece of crap thread he has begun.

You seem to be missing the government subsidization that I mentioned in my post. Without that, ethanol production from corn would not be profitable and so would not be pursued by the private sector.

I obviously can't read worth a damn since I took a shot at speed reading.

Note how OD has returned to the thread ...I have returned as advertised
.

..and refuses to answer any of the dozens of posts trashing his position. My position is/are simple:

#1 "President Hugo Chavez's seizes control from big oil"

#2 It is a perfectly legal move.

#3 You keep saying Venezuela is being destroyed by Chavez, I say Bull shit. (when I say "you" I mean others like you)
.
.

He basically is conceding defeat through his actions, but his overly large ego will try to claim victory here. LOL, you say "Occean can magically Concede defeat AND claim victory AT THE SAME TIME." ... so I am a magician now :D
.

I've noticed this pattern with every piece of crap thread he has begun... you add "He can magically Concede defeat AND claim victory at the same time.. in every thread he makes."

dude, reading your post.. one would think I have kinetic mind bending powers.. :D

I am just giving a thumbs up because Chavez is constantly on-yo-face. :D :D ;) :D

actually.. I meant to say "on il-Bushio's face".. but whatever... :p

That is not a good quality to want in your leader, it leads to institutionalised jingoism and brinkmanship.

And if he uses the money to buy Russian and Chinese military equipment, that's cool, because he meant well?


Well, their equipment is much cheaper...

Are you saying that neoliberalism existed in the form of the World Bank and IMF since 1945?

The IMF serves merely to try to push forward the north american (primarily) and european groups interests above all others.

A pathetic euphamism for arms, and buying political support.

Couldn't other expenses involve trying to find new natural resources or industrialise the country?

Or maybe even modernise the basic needs of the people?

Good luck keeping your infastructure up to date, Hugo.

As long as he is intelligent about the state services and hires more competent people

Couldn't other expenses involve trying to find new natural resources or industrialise the country?

Or maybe even modernise the basic needs of the people?

He's not doing that.

As long as he is intelligent about the state services and hires more competent people

He has no incentive to be. His interest in this is a short term cash cow.

My position is/are simple:

#1 "President Hugo Chavez's seizes control from big oil"

#2 It is a perfectly legal move.

#3 You keep saying Venezuela is being destroyed by Chavez, I say Bull shit.

But you have not bothered to argue that position. You have made it clear that you couldn't be bothered to provide any substantial arguments, or credible sources, and you have also made it clear that you will simply dismiss out of hand anything not sufficiently pro-Chavez.

While you might claim victory, in arguing the way you havbe such a claim is hollow, because no one else would ev er concede that you have won.

The reason that the natural consequences of Chavez's policies (more widespread poverty, economic collapse_ haven't come to pass yet is that high oil prices are shielding his regime from those consequences.

In other words, he violates fundamental individual rights in order to enable him to violate even more fundamental individual rights.

Excuse me while I weep for those poor oil executives... :rolleyes:

Which is why they are morally superior to you.

Oh, of course an immortal, conscienesless "person" with billions in assets is morally superior to a critically thinking real person.

Counter (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/Luporum/retarded.jpg)

You people are focusing too much on the messenger(Occean)..
where it should be about: Chavez, Oil companies, Land confiscation, May Day, etc.

It wouldn't be about the messenger if there was no opinion on the messenger's side. But that's not the case now is it?

It seems like you people are being overly harsh on OcceanDrive. I may not have witnessed his other antics which so many of you are judging him on, but does that mean that you should constantly harass him for his opinion? Blaming him for not responding to all posts is rather unfair, considering all the posts he has to respond to.

As for the actual situation, it hinges on how effective Chavez's boys are at extracting oil compared to the corporate ones. I doubt they can compare, but I'm not all that well acquainted with oil drilling procedures; even Chavez doesn't get as much oil every day, is that bad? Is that excess oil wasted, or can he just get it later?

As for what he will spend the money on, I do notice that he spends quite a bit on education and other such welfare-related areas. He does spend on the military, but his military spending can't compare to a great deal of other countries.

It seems like you people are being overly harsh on OcceanDrive. I may not have witnessed his other antics which so many of you are judging him on, but does that mean that you should constantly harass him for his opinion? Blaming him for not responding to all posts is rather unfair, considering all the posts he has to respond to.

As for the actual situation, it hinges on how effective Chavez's boys are at extracting oil compared to the corporate ones. I doubt they can compare, but I'm not all that well acquainted with oil drilling procedures; even Chavez doesn't get as much oil every day, is that bad? Is that excess oil wasted, or can he just get it later?

As for what he will spend the money on, I do notice that he spends quite a bit on education and other such welfare-related areas. He does spend on the military, but his military spending can't compare to a great deal of other countries.
Stick around this forum for a few more weeks and you will see OD is nothing more than an anti-semitic troll who in pure Mel Gibson style blames the Jews for all of the world's problems.

Precedent suggests that Chávez's managing techniques aren't the most effective in the world... something that is not entirely his fault.

But if he uses the funds for something worthwhile, I have no strong objections.

It seems like you people are being overly harsh on OcceanDrive. *snip*

Meh. He likes the attention. His basic themes:

1) The shrub is evil.
2) The west is evil.
3) The US is really evil.
4) Islam is the answer to all problems.
5) Islam never does anything wrong; the West made them do it.

Not really big news. The fact is that these so-called "privately-owned oil fields" have never been privately owned at all. Oil companies everywhere have always acted as government contractors, getting a cut of the profit in exchange for extracting and marketing the government's oil. The very fact that governments everywhere charge "royalties" for oil extraction (and other mineral extraction) shows this. If it were simply a case of an oil company buying the land in which oil can be extracted, all the company would ever have owed is their company taxes.

Now is a good time to open bike shops in Venezuela (unless Chavez has stolen them as well).You sound quite confused. First you say that the oil fields were state property to begin with. Then you suggest that Chavez just 'stole them' from some capitalists. You don't know what words mean, do you?

The idea that Venezuela 'needs' American capitalists to extract their oil and 'handle' all that oil wealth for them is also quite paternalistic and absurd. If the people of Venezuela need oil extracting 'know how' they can damned well buy it without giving away a large part of their national wealth. Do you give your surgeon one of your kidneys for giving you a triple bypass? :rolleyes:

I view Chavez as an annoying little kid. He does all this stupid shit to get attention and the grown ups (rest of the world) pretty much just ignore him. This drives him to commit ever stupider actions that will only serve to eventually drive him over the edge and get him thrown out of power or maybe even shot one day.

Only a left wing extremist will argue that Chavez's policies are anywhere near effective. His only focus is on short term gains and increasing his power. He has Venezuela on track to be the next Cuba, broke and oppressed by a authoritarian idealogue. It's a pity the people of Venezuela deserve better, but they're making their bed and soon they'll get to lie in it.

It's a pity the people of Venezuela deserve better, Yes, they deserve the sort of fascist that their good friends the American government has a habit of installing in South American countries. They deserve to be exploited by gringo capitalists. They deserve to starve, and they certainly don't deserve to ELECT THEIR OWN FUCKING GOVERNMENT.:rolleyes:

I view Chavez as an annoying little kid. He does all this stupid shit to get attention and the grown ups (rest of the world) pretty much just ignore him. This drives him to commit ever stupider actions that will only serve to eventually drive him over the edge and get him thrown out of power or maybe even shot one day.

Because he couldn't possibly have any real reasons for his actions, of course.

(And the Venezuelan people who keep electing him are... what? A kindergarten class?)

Only a left wing extremist will argue that Chavez's policies are anywhere near effective.

As a real left-wing extremist, I think Chávez hasn't gone anywhere near far enough.

I mean, capitalism and the state still exist in Venezuela... what the fuck? ;)

His only focus is on short term gains and increasing his power.

That, of course, is why he's funded education and health care, both essential to economic development, and proposed a constitution that allowed the people to recall him... which some of them tried to do (and failed.)

<Snip>Thanks. I can't seem to reply to the racist filth in this thread without courting deat.

Yes, they deserve the sort of fascist that their good friends the American government has a habit of installing in South American countries. They deserve to be exploited by gringo capitalists. They deserve to starve, and they certainly don't deserve to ELECT THEIR OWN FUCKING GOVERNMENT.:rolleyes:

Oh as a basic American I can say that yes they deserve all the freedoms that they can get their hands on. However can you positively tell me that isolating South America from the world system and then crying for foreign aid packages is a good thing I might through in the towel.

The idea that Venezuela 'needs' American capitalists to extract their oil and 'handle' all that oil wealth for them is also quite paternalistic and absurd.

No more so than the idea that you need capitalists to ensure that you have good running shoes.

The oil companies have shown that they can be highly effective in

If the people of Venezuela need oil extracting 'know how' they can damned well buy it without giving away a large part of their national wealth.

They have to be able to induce the oil companies to manage them as well as they can. That costs.

The alternative is badly managed oil fields.

Precedent suggests that Chávez's managing techniques aren't the most effective in the world... something that is not entirely his fault.

Perhaps so, soldiers aren't really trained to manage oil industries. But what is his fault is that he is imposing his less effective management over the more effective management.

That, of course, is why he's funded education and health care, both essential to economic development, and proposed a constitution that allowed the people to recall him... which some of them tried to do (and failed.)

If you had any interest in looking at Chavez's regime in any depth, you would see that democracy in the present in Venezuela is questionable, and democracy in the future in Venezuela is doubtful. The fact that he can rule by decree means that any assurances that Venezuela will continue to be democratic in any meaningful sense will be hollow assurances.

What is however not open to question is that the Chavez regime, however democratic it is or isn't, does not leave the people free to do as they wish. His regime is attempting to control more and more sectors of society.

No more so than the idea that you need capitalists to ensure that you have good running shoes.

precisely

I always love it when people like you cheer when a government takes over privately owned property using force. It's like people who cheer at a mugging. And then you laughably say "LOL HOW IS THAT, BIG OIL," apparently thinking that a government (aka, Bigger Oil, With Guns) is in some way inherently morally superior to "big oil."

It's not that simple, since the US oil companies can always go to the current regime controlling the USA and ask them to invade/liberate any country with substantial amounts of oil that won't let them take oil out of the ground and profits out of the country. When the state and the corporation join hands, you get the Biggest Oil and the Biggest Guns.

The second thing you missed is that Chavez's oil policies (like all his economic policies) have been failures. In the oil area, he has imposed price controls on gasolene, which has meant that oil companies cannot make profit selling gasolene to Venezuelans (because they must charge less than what it costs to extract it). His price controls have not meant that the poor can afford more goods, they have created shortages.

I love how people make baseless claims about Chavez after reading some economic theory that already agrees with their politics. If this is what's really happening, it should not take more than a few seconds to prove it. The only mentions of gas shortages were during the general strike against his government in 2002 (link) (http://english.people.com.cn/200212/22/eng20021222_108929.shtml) . By 2005, there was apparently enough gasoline that he sent an additional 1 million barrels to the USA after Katrina. Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702235_pf.html).

Chavez is engaging in some pretty short-sighted thinking, he views the oil fields as nothing more than a slush fund, to enable him to buy support. He does not view oil as a business, so infrastructure will be neglected in his drive to extract as much cheap cash from the earth as possible, in order to fund his political "visions".

Right. Which is why he goes around the world making deals with other countries so that they invest in Venezuelan infrastructure. Link (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17333)

Can you back up the idea that price ceilings lead to something other than shortages?

Can you back up the idea that they don't?

And if he uses the money to buy Russian and Chinese military equipment, that's cool, because he meant well?

No, it's cool because as a sovereign nation, Venezuela has a duty to defend themselves if attacked. It's called military spending. All nations do it.

Keep that in mind when you turn 28 (if you haven't already).

It's the oil (and coal) that fueled the Industrial Revolution that has pushed the average human life span in the Western world past that age.

So once you turn 28, your own life becomes base and evil, according to you.

I used to think that Communism was the perfect example of "looks good on paper, but would never work in reality", but then I encountered Objectivism.

No more so than the idea that you need capitalists to ensure that you have good running shoes.

And sweatshops, apparently...:rolleyes:

Nationalisations make me angry. They make me want to support companies hiring their own private armies and protecting what they built.

Nationalisations make me angry. They make me want to support companies hiring their own private armies and protecting what they built.

Those kind of companies would make me want to nationalise them.

I love how people make baseless claims about Chavez after reading some economic theory that already agrees with their politics.
Funny, it was the other way around for me.

If this is what's really happening, it should not take more than a few seconds to prove it.
What he said wasn't entirely correct, but the fact that price controls in Venezuela are failing is.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6c814838-aca8-11db-9318-0000779e2340.html
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9010908

Right. Which is why he goes around the world making deals with other countries so that they invest in Venezuelan infrastructure.
Though they'd be pretty silly to do deals with someone who has a habit of stealing from his business partners.

Can you back up the idea that they don't?
Yep. Price fixing in the US during the oil crises.

Also, I suppose rent controls come to mind. As a Vietnamese minister once said: "The Americans couldn't destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city by very low rents. We realized it was stupid and that we must change policy."

Once Venezuela has reached Zimbabwean levels, maybe it will dawn on people. Until then, I'm resigned to the fact that populists always seem to find a way to repeat past mistakes. I just wish they'd limit the damage they do to themselves and their voters, and wouldn't pull in innocent people.

And sweatshops, apparently...:rolleyes:
Fact: In low income countries multinational corporations pay their workers more than double what domestic employers pay.

Those kind of companies would make me want to nationalise them.
Yeah, but at least then it'd be a fair fight, more or less.

If only one side says it's ready to use violence, and the other just has to take it, that sorta offends my sense of fairness. You don't hit people who can't or won't defend themselves.

It seems like you people are being overly harsh on OcceanDrive. I may not have witnessed his other antics which so many of you are judging him on, but does that mean that you should constantly harass him for his opinion? Blaming him for not responding to all posts is rather unfair, considering all the posts he has to respond to.

And when he does respond, he does not respond with arguments! He just dismisses the argument and posts something against his opponets (not necessarily the poster)

As for what he will spend the money on, I do notice that he spends quite a bit on education and other such welfare-related areas. He does spend on the military, but his military spending can't compare to a great deal of other countries.

That is true however he is nationalising industries that need not be nationalized and a nationalized economy is never good.

I view Chavez as an annoying little kid. He does all this stupid shit to get attention and the grown ups (rest of the world) pretty much just ignore him. This drives him to commit ever stupider actions that will only serve to eventually drive him over the edge and get him thrown out of power or maybe even shot one day.

Only a left wing extremist will argue that Chavez's policies are anywhere near effective. His only focus is on short term gains and increasing his power. He has Venezuela on track to be the next Cuba, broke and oppressed by a authoritarian idealogue. It's a pity the people of Venezuela deserve better, but they're making their bed and soon they'll get to lie in it.

Pretty much.

No, I think the president we elected is smart, intelligent, and doing the right thing. :D :D ;) :D

and when i say elected... I should say elected by the Republican supremes.

"WE"? Did you vote for Chávez, I wonder?

By 2005, there was apparently enough gasoline that he sent an additional 1 million barrels to the USA after Katrina.

Which is done because it is more profitable (thanks to price controls) to send it to the US than sell it at home.

As a real left-wing extremist, I think Chávez hasn't gone anywhere near far enough.

What would you want?

That, of course, is why he's funded education and health care, both essential to economic development, and proposed a constitution that allowed the people to recall him... which some of them tried to do (and failed.)

To be fair he has eroded constraints to his power.

Perhaps so, soldiers aren't really trained to manage oil industries. But what is his fault is that he is imposing his less effective management over the more effective management.

It would be more of a case of putting people who have no knowlege as the managers. As long as he get competent people to help run them the oil production would carry on fine.

If you had any interest in looking at Chavez's regime in any depth, you would see that democracy in the present in Venezuela is questionable, and democracy in the future in Venezuela is doubtful. The fact that he can rule by decree means that any assurances that Venezuela will continue to be democratic in any meaningful sense will be hollow assurances.

That is my biggest problem with Venezuala. Even then as long as he works in favour of the country and population it is fine (which he seems to be doing). It is whoever comes after him I am worried about (for now).

Do you use the word regime as a negative connotation?

Which is why they are morally superior to you.

...... How?

That is true however he is nationalising industries that need not be nationalized and a nationalized economy is never good.

Why is a nationalised economy never good? I'd agree that a nationalised economy that is run for political purposes (not cutting work staff when they should, putting in people from the government of the day instead of more qualified people, etc).

A rational co-cogestion nationalised economy could work.

Which is done because it is more profitable (thanks to price controls) to send it to the US than sell it at home.

Actually that was an offer of a donation (thus even more subsidised).

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1743
What is however not open to question is that the Chavez regime, however democratic it is or isn't, does not leave the people free to do as they wish. His regime is attempting to control more and more sectors of society.

The state being more intergrated into society does not equal an absolute control style (generic situation).

It's not that simple, since the US oil companies can always go to the current regime controlling the USA and ask them to invade/liberate any country with substantial amounts of oil that won't let them take oil out of the ground and profits out of the country. When the state and the corporation join hands, you get the Biggest Oil and the Biggest Guns.

Petrodollar reliance is one of the reasons.

Right. Which is why he goes around the world making deals with other countries so that they invest in Venezuelan infrastructure. Link (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17333)

Which is exactly what he should be doing: Trying to modernise the country.

No, it's cool because as a sovereign nation, Venezuela has a duty to defend themselves if attacked. It's called military spending. All nations do it..

He only really needs to purchase police equipment. If he spent the money both improving the training and quality of equipment for the police and set up much better safeguards and oversight on the police then some of the crime problems could be taken care of.

I used to think that Communism was the perfect example of "looks good on paper, but would never work in reality", but then I encountered Objectivism.[/QUOTE]

Objectivism is creepy.

No, it's cool because as a sovereign nation, Venezuela has a duty to defend themselves if attacked. It's called military spending. All nations do it.

Apparently, you aren't familiar with the fact that buying those planes would only make them targets for US stealth bombers if the US wanted to invade.

It's a stupid expenditure. What, is Brazil going to invade Venezuela?

It might take the US only a few sorties to destroy the entire collection of newly purchased aircraft.

Funny, it was the other way around for me.


What he said wasn't entirely correct, but the fact that price controls in Venezuela are failing is.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6c814838-aca8-11db-9318-0000779e2340.html
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9010908


Though they'd be pretty silly to do deals with someone who has a habit of stealing from his business partners.


Yep. Price fixing in the US during the oil crises.

Also, I suppose rent controls come to mind. As a Vietnamese minister once said: "The Americans couldn't destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city by very low rents. We realized it was stupid and that we must change policy."

Once Venezuela has reached Zimbabwean levels, maybe it will dawn on people. Until then, I'm resigned to the fact that populists always seem to find a way to repeat past mistakes. I just wish they'd limit the damage they do to themselves and their voters, and wouldn't pull in innocent people.


Fact: In low income countries multinational corporations pay their workers more than double what domestic employers pay.


Yeah, but at least then it'd be a fair fight, more or less.

If only one side says it's ready to use violence, and the other just has to take it, that sorta offends my sense of fairness. You don't hit people who can't or won't defend themselves.

You know, your first link shows no relation between price controls and shortages. And the second link shows taht the problems are more complicated than a simple price control = shortages theory would imply. Not only is there hoarding and specualtion going on in the Venezuelan food industry, according to your article, but there are also free market forces contributing to the shortages, again from your link:

There are two other factors, says Pavel Gómez of IESA, a Caracas business school: the price controls themselves, which have boosted demand and cut supply, and an expectation that prices will rise further, leading people to bring forward purchases.

Medical supplies in Canada are price controlled through Medicare. Yet this hasn't created a shortage of medical supplies. I guess the general theory of 'price control = shortages' works better on paper than it does in real life.

If, in fact, some multinational corporations pay their workers more than double what domestic employers pay in low income countries, this does not preclude the existence and use of sweatshops and indentured workers by other multinational corporations.

And by the way, Chavez did not nationalise anything.

Chavez demands a 60% stake in the oil companies’ holdings and he may nationalize the field, Regan said. Chavez planned an elaborate ceremony on May Day, the international workers’ holiday, with red-clad oil workers, soldiers and a fly-over by Russian-made fighters.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/18415992

It might take the US only a few sorties to destroy the entire collection of newly purchased aircraft.

The russians make pretty good attack aircraft (defences are not as good as U.S planes) for a decent price.

Which is done because it is more profitable (thanks to price controls) to send it to the US than sell it at home.

How does this change the fact that there is no gasoline shortage in Venezuela due to price controls? Not to mention that these price controls have been around for longer than Chavez has been in power.

Apparently, you aren't familiar with the fact that buying those planes would only make them targets for US stealth bombers if the US wanted to invade.

It's a stupid expenditure. What, is Brazil going to invade Venezuela?

It might take the US only a few sorties to destroy the entire collection of newly purchased aircraft.

Since they would lose to the USA, they should not spend any money on the military? Are you high? There are more countries in the world than just the USA and Venezuela, you know. Considering the tensions between Colombia and Venezuela, or the possible tensions between Venezuela and any other country, I have yet to see a good reason why they should not try to protect themselves to the best of their ability.

The russians make pretty good attack aircraft (defences are not as good as U.S planes) for a decent price.

In order for them to work at all, you have to be able to safely base them on the ground at an airfield you can protect, and have an IADS to defend with (a system of radars and defense missiles).

There isn't an IADS on the planet that can detect or stop the current Stealth Bomber from flying into your airspace unseen, and then bombing the crap out of your IADS, your airfields, and any parked aircraft.

In short, your fighters, no matter who you bought them from, would be rather expensive targets.

I believe Chavez bought them to enhance the size of his public penis, and for flying over his parades.

Since they would lose to the USA, they should not spend any money on the military? Are you high? There are more countries in the world than just the USA and Venezuela, you know. Considering the tensions between Colombia and Venezuela, or the possible tensions between Venezuela and any other country, I have yet to see a good reason why they should not try to protect themselves to the best of their ability.

I didn't know about the Columbia-Venezuala tensions, I suppose that is as good a reason as any. As long as they don't go overboard with their millitary spending (or try to underfund the police).

That could be an opportunity for Venezuala to try to boost it's aircraft industry by trying to have the russian planes made their, unless they are only buying a few, which in that case would mean that it would not be worth the expense and effort making new factory.

I love/hate the way you lot judge the venezuelan situation...

"I am a capitalist, thus Chávez is bad"
"I am a socialist, thus Chávez is good"

"Chávez is against Bush, so I agree with him"
"Chávez is against Bush, so I hate him"

Most of you are so uninformed, or extremely biased informed, (and I am talking about both sides here), that is already crossing the funny-sad line.

However, I must add that some people have made some points of value, mostly both Soleichunn and Gift-of-God, specially the former,although both positions are valid in a certain way of thinking, (note the certain way).

I have like two thousands opinions on many of the topics highlighted in this thread, but I am just tired of beating the dead mule.

On a general note, I am from Venezuela, I oppose the goverment of Hugo Chávez (Yes, it is written with the "á" thing), and yet I support the nationalization of the oil fields. It has been done before, it has worked before, it could work now, done properly. Those our oil fields and we can retake them whenever we want, foreign corporations prey upon our resources and treat native workers like crap, and even then, Chávez offered the oil transnational companies to be part, along with the State, of mixed administrations of the fields,and they didn't accept. Hard cheese on them, he offered quite a nice deal, they should had taken it.

And yes, the new planes were a stupid expenditure of money. They have absolutely no other objetive but to massage Hugo's ego. In assimetric warfare, as it would be against the US, and as Chávez love to say we are trainning our forces for, fighter planes are useless.

And to solve the crime issue, we need to purge and improve our judicial system, that is entirely rotten to the core and it is absolutely ineffective. Police numbers are already high, and they are good equipped. Compare the number of arrests, that is pretty decent, with the number of convictions and you will get a general idea on what is wrong. Even more, talk to a venezuelan police agent. He will tell you that they get the bad guys, but that they get released in a week in any case, so it is pointless.

However, and this should put some of you to think, although most venezuelans recognize crime and personal insecurity as the main issue of the current situation (and it is, for christ's sake!), not even once Chávez in his "Aló, Presidente" has addressed the issue, prefering to dodge it and continue with his international agenda, that really, for me and for most people here, is absolutely unrelevant. When you see each day out in the street as a potentially lethal adventure, you stop to care about imperialism, Bush, fatherland or death, and ideology.

I would really love to hear and see him saying "And now, regarding those criminals, the revolution is upon you, fear us, because we are going to get you! We are going to hit you so hard that you will wish that idiot devil of Bush were your president". He would earn my respect. But no, I expect it each sunday, and it never happens. I always get the same crap against the empire and Bush. Bush is not fucking my life, neither are the americans. The damn criminals are. I actually despise Bush, but I think he is an issue of the people from the US, not of our people. Chávez need to care more about internal affairs, and dropping that silly "INTERNATIONAL CALLING TO FREE THE WORLD FROM EVIL", that actually is similar to the Bush's calling "TO FREE THE WORLD FROM TERRORISM".

If I could put the both of them in the same room, I would tell them "Behave boys, stop meddling in the life of your class mates, and do your homework, ok? home-work".

"WE"? Did you vote for Chávez, I wonder?

He's talking about the American Election back in 2000.

Why is a nationalised economy never good? I'd agree that a nationalised economy that is run for political purposes (not cutting work staff when they should, putting in people from the government of the day instead of more qualified people, etc).

A rational co-cogestion nationalised economy could work.

Maybe but it is only an economic theory after all. Is there any nations that actually have such a system?

Those our oil fields and we can retake them whenever we want, foreign corporations prey upon our resources and treat native workers like crap, and even then, Chávez offered the oil transnational companies to be part, along with the State, of mixed administrations of the fields,and they didn't accept. Hard cheese on them, he offered quite a nice deal, they should had taken it.

How does a geographical coincidence give Chavez the right to own and control oil fields?

He did nothing to develop them, nor did the vast majority of Venezuelans, all they did was get born in Venezuela. If there is anyone with a legitimate claim of ownership to the oil fields, it is the oil companies.

As to the "nice deal", you don't make nice deals with people like Chavez, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

It may sound stupid but what do you mean?:)

Animal Farm is a satyrical novel making fun of the communist revolution in Russia. In the book the animals band together and take control of a farm. The pigs, declaring themselves as the smartest... run the farm as a dictorial communist government and convince the other animals to work basically as slaves, far worse than what the farmers treated them, until many of them die of exhaustion and malnutrition. The quote "Four legs good! Two legs bad!" was the motto the animals took up during thier 'revolution'.

I can honestly see why it was used here as a idiom for what OceanDrive is doing. Just because Hugo Chavez is against George Bush Ocean likes him. Just because th epigs convinced the animals on the farm that farmers are evil... the animals like them.

Human stupidity in action.

And I had no idea that this thread was 8 pages long...

Why is a nationalised economy never good? I'd agree that a nationalised economy that is run for political purposes (not cutting work staff when they should, putting in people from the government of the day instead of more qualified people, etc).

A rational co-cogestion nationalised economy could work.

Milton Friedman said "A government institution, that is not guided in its behavior by politics, is as likely as a barking cat".

You are proposing the existance of a barking cat.

That said, let me take a different tack. In a nationalised economy, there can be no market prices. This is because market prices are determined by supply and demand between private owners throughout the economic system. A state pricing/planning board cannot replicate this function.

Nationalising of oil fields has not worked well, the oil situation of the Soviet Union shows that, and more to the point, government control of oil does not lead to good things. Without government control of oil, Saddam Hussein would have been a little joke, an Arab Bokassa. Without government control of oil, Saudi Arabia would not be exporting its disgusting brand of Islam, creating terrorists all over the world.

How does a geographical coincidence give Chavez the right to own and control oil fields?

Well considering that it lies under the territorial areas of the state of Venezuala it allows the state to own the land. Since Chavez is at the moment the head of state it falls partially under his power.

He did nothing to develop them, nor did the vast majority of Venezuelans, all they did was get born in Venezuela. If there is anyone with a legitimate claim of ownership to the oil fields, it is the oil companies.

Only for the equipment (and even that is tenuous if the state feels that they were short changed). They have made their money back on the investment, with interest.

Most of the workers at that company are Venezuelan and as such are part of the society and state of Venezuela.

As to the "nice deal", you don't make nice deals with people like Chavez, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Apart from taken a swing in more authoritarian ruling I don't see how he (or the state) are not worth the contracts they sign.

How does a geographical coincidence give Chavez the right to own and control oil fields?

He did nothing to develop them, nor did the vast majority of Venezuelans, all they did was get born in Venezuela. If there is anyone with a legitimate claim of ownership to the oil fields, it is the oil companies.

As to the "nice deal", you don't make nice deals with people like Chavez, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Can we reclaim every Citgo property in the US then? I hope you also agree with that, no? It is the same legitimacy concept you are applying.

As to the "nice deal", you don't make nice deals with people like the transnational oil companies, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Can we reclaim every Citgo property in the US then? I hope you also agree with that, no? It is the same legitimacy concept you are applying.

As to the "nice deal", you don't make nice deals with people like the transnational oil companies, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

What do you think of the post I made about Venezuela reaching peak oil?

You know, your first link shows no relation between price controls and shortages.
And I didn't claim it. I simply said that the price controls are in fact failing, which is true because they are unsustainable. They're also really, really bad for the environment.

And the second link shows taht the problems are more complicated than a simple price control = shortages theory would imply.
Again, such a simple statement wasn't my intention. Of course it's complex, and of course that doesn't change the outcome, which is that the price controls are hurting people and the economy, instead of helping.

Not only is there hoarding and specualtion going on in the Venezuelan food industry, according to your article, but there are also free market forces contributing to the shortages, again from your link:
That's because the free market doesn't go away just because you impose laws. It simply moves and becomes an extralegal black market. Not exactly the first time this happens.

It's not price controls themselves which are unworkable, it's the fact that even if they exist people still make independent economic decisions, and the two react with each other and leave a big mess. That's why the government has to threaten harsher and harsher punishments for people involved in trading food to market prices - it tries to stop people from making independent decisions.

Medical supplies in Canada are price controlled through Medicare. Yet this hasn't created a shortage of medical supplies. I guess the general theory of 'price control = shortages' works better on paper than it does in real life.
You're still burning the very same strawman.

The prices set for medicines in Canada or Britain work in a very different way to the much more simple controls in Venezuela. In fact, only because the government runs a public healthcare system is it possible, and even there the relevant departments are having a hard time dealing with the fact that these drugs simply aren't being produced for free. They have to be bought, and it is a balancing act to find prices to set which actually result in people still bothering to deliver them (The Economist had a good article, but one can't access it on the web anymore). Evidently the food prices in Venezuela aren't set this way, but rather based on politics.

And unfortunately, nationalising the food industry (which would be the equivalent action, more or less) wouldn't solve anything either. I believe they've been doing that in Zimbabwe, and the results aren't exactly encouraging.

If, in fact, some multinational corporations pay their workers more than double what domestic employers pay in low income countries, this does not preclude the existence and use of sweatshops and indentured workers by other multinational corporations.
No, it doesn't. But if you look, you will also find that the cases of sweatshop labour are cases of companies outsourcing the work to local firms, at it is those local firms which use sweatshop labour.

And since that sort of thing blew up in Nike's face, firms are generally much more careful about the sort of contractors they hire.

But be that as it may, my point was simply that it seems that for the locals in developing countries, a job with an MNC is a blessing, not a curse.

And by the way, Chavez did not nationalise anything.
They never just go and do it, not least because Chavez knows fully well that without those companies all he'd have is a lot of brown, smelly mud.

The thing I am questioning is the validity of even threatening to steal, and using that extortion to get concessions without paying for them.

Those our oil fields and we can retake them whenever we want...
Only because might makes right, apparently.

How does a geographical coincidence give Chavez the right to own and control oil fields?

He did nothing to develop them, nor did the vast majority of Venezuelans, all they did was get born in Venezuela. If there is anyone with a legitimate claim of ownership to the oil fields, it is the oil companies.

As to the "nice deal", you don't make nice deals with people like Chavez, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

How does an economic coincidence give some random rich USian the right to own the profits extracted from another country's national resources?

And what do you mean by develop, anyway? Does the CEO in some New York office do the real work, or does the Venezuelan manual labourer who actually puts together the infrastructure do it?

So if you don't make deals with people like Chavez, what do you do instead? Support a coup against him to protect your economic interests? Please, that's so Kissinger...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/30/MNGAAJN9JG1.DTL

Mexico only has 10 years of oil left. Then 40 percent of their government's revenue (and a large portion of the Mexican economy) will vanish forever, no matter what they do.

The same thing will happen to Venezuela.

Is Venezuela's oil production rapidly waning? One source reports that the world's fifth largest oil producer is showing signs of a rapid decrease in production, one of the key tenets of the peak oil theory.

Venezuela is buying oil from Russia in order to avoid defaulting on deliveries to clients. The situation raises serious questions about the country's oil production and the future of PDVSA as a major oil producer, and increases the risk to the U.S. oil supply should the country's oil production suddenly plummet.

According to the Financial Times: "Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has struck a $2bn deal to buy about 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Russia until the end of the year. Venezuela has been forced to turn to an outside source to avoid defaulting on contracts with "clients" and "third parties" as it faces a shortfall in production, according to a person familiar with the deal. Venezuela could incur penalties if it fails to meet its supply contracts."

The news has so far been very much inside baseball, as it has not made the mainstream, due to competition from more sensational stories such as the illegal alien marches, and the media's obsession with oil company profits.

But, as these things go, we may be on the verge of a major developing story.

I found it, but the shortage on production is basically caused by the consequences of the oil strike several years ago, the saboutage that several Chávez opposers did to the industry back then, and the new management that is unprepared and untrianed to do their jobs, as they are not familiar with the structure of the company, forcing them to make stupid mistakes. Several fires have spreaded over our refineries during the last years, because of the inptitude of the rather new operators, that usually are placed in their positions due to political affinities and not because actual efficiency.

We still have rather large reserves, for now, still unexploited. However, for good or for bad, it is slowly recovering.

A rational co-cogestion nationalised economy could work.



No, it couldn't.

The sheer number of variables present in modern economies, and the complexity of interactions, makes it impossible for any monolithic central body--be it a single individual or a committee--to competently govern an entire economy.

Markets work so much better because they allow billions of individuals, each with their own interests and own bits of information concerning them, to deal among each other. By creating a distributed decision-making system, the spontaneous order of markets is much more effective than central decree.

Read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" sometime. It'll rock your world.

I found it, but the shortage on production is basically caused by the consequences of the oil strike several years ago, the saboutage that several Chávez opposers did to the industry back then, and the new management that is unprepared and untrianed to do their jobs, as they are not familiar with the structure of the company, forcing them to make stupid mistakes. Several fires have spreaded over our refineries during the last years, because of the inptitude of the rather new operators, that usually are placed in their positions due to political affinities and not because actual efficiency.

We still have rather large reserves, for now, still unexploited. However, for good or for bad, it is slowly recovering.

That makes sense, too. It would lower production until everyone was good at their jobs again.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Medical supplies in Canada are price controlled through Medicare. Yet this hasn't created a shortage of medical supplies. I guess the general theory of 'price control = shortages' works better on paper than it does in real life.


Nope; if it were true, then economists, as scientists, would have abandoned that theory long ago.

What (too many) people seem to fail to understand is that economics is not normative but rather descriptive. Its purpose is not to tell you how things should be--that's the role of philosophy--but rather how things work in reality. Any "normative" guidelines people claim to derive from economics actually come from the particular school of political/social/ethical thought they subscribe to.

Economics can certainly tell you how to achieve a given goal, or what is the likely outcome of a given course of action, but it can't tell you what your goals should be, or whether the outcome of a given course of action is good or bad. For that you need philosophy.

Economics is a science, and like all sciences it is simply concerned with describing the world as it actually works.

Most of you are so uninformed, or extremely biased informed, (and I am talking about both sides here), that is already crossing the funny-sad line.

Ahh, NSG, like a burning blanket in a snowstorm.

On a general note, I am from Venezuela, I oppose the goverment of Hugo Chávez (Yes, it is written with the "á" thing)

I'm more ambivalent but I do see your point. (Hmmm I can't do letter accents easily)

And yes, the new planes were a stupid expenditure of money. They have absolutely no other objetive but to massage Hugo's ego. In assimetric warfare, as it would be against the US, and as Chávez love to say we are trainning our forces for, fighter planes are useless.

In a way they are to boost public spirit and support.

The amount of money could have been spent increasing the quantity and quality of the millitary engineers (since their involvment seemed to allow cheaper construction projects)

And to solve the crime issue, we need to purge and improve our judicial system, that is entirely rotten to the core and it is absolutely ineffective. Police numbers are already high, and they are good equipped. Compare the number of arrests, that is pretty decent, with the number of convictions and you will get a general idea on what is wrong. Even more, talk to a venezuelan police agent. He will tell you that they get the bad guys, but that they get released in a week in any case, so it is pointless.

I always thought that some chunks of the police participated in freelance work also. Sucks to my knowlege of a foreign country.

How could the juidicial system be impoved in your country?

However, and this should put some of you to think, although most venezuelans recognize crime and personal insecurity as the main issue of the current situation (and it is, for christ's sake!), not even once Chávez in his

"Aló, Presidente"

(Is that his tv show?)

has addressed the issue, prefering to dodge it and continue with his international agenda, that really, for me and for most people here, is absolutely unrelevant. When you see each day out in the street as a potentially lethal adventure, you stop to care about imperialism, Bush, fatherland or death, and ideology.

I would have thought reducing crime (thus stopping cargo being lost, increasing productivity) and stopping the black market (increasing wealth available to general public and state) would have been no brainers.

How does an economic coincidence give some random rich USian the right to own the profits extracted from another country's national resources?

No "coincidence" involved--they went in there and did it.

And I didn't claim it. I simply said that the price controls are in fact failing, which is true because they are unsustainable. They're also really, really bad for the environment...(snipped for length)...The thing I am questioning is the validity of even threatening to steal, and using that extortion to get concessions without paying for them..

So what you are saying is that price controls, in certain situations, can cause shortages. The current situation in Venezuela is one of those situations.

That may well be. But I could say the same thing about free market policies. And you are also forgetting that Venezuela has no gasoline shortage despite the price controls. So it is possible for Venezuela to intelligently manage price controls without creating shortages.

My bit about the Canadian health care system was just an example of how price controls do not necessarily create shortages. That is all. I was not trying to imply that such a solution would be ideal for the food shortage in Venezuela. I'm itching to go on about it, but I think it would be too much of a tangent.

Same goes for the sweatshop discussion. Though I want to reply to that too. I will say that in the situations you describe, such a job would be a blessing.

As for nationalisation, it is not theft as the companies whose assets are nationalised are paid back for those assets. Unforunately, in Latin America, these companies are usually paid what they (the companies) claim their assets are worth, which is usually far lower than the actual worth. The reason the companies undervalue their own assets is to pay less taxes.

Neat. This is my first 'economics' debate ever. I hope I'm not doing too badly.

In a way they are to boost public spirit and support.

The amount of money could have been spent increasing the quantity and quality of the millitary engineers (since their involvment seemed to allow cheaper construction projects)

How about expanding the train lines already being made, or finally spreading the network of highways to the entire country, or helping with the shortage of medicines and sugar, or beef? I could name at least a dozen uses for that money, better than just putting it into "awe inspiring" planes. Please inspire our awe with something useful. We really don't need to invest further in the military department.

I always thought that some chunks of the police participated in freelance work also. Sucks to my knowlege of a foreign country.

How could the juidicial system be impoved in your country?

Well, depends on the state...We don't have a national police, the police is under the orders of each different mayor and governor. A law is being made to change that, but it is still on the process of getting approved. Some police forces are good, others are a shame. It depends. But overall, it is not in as bad shape as you may think. The main problem within the police are dirty agents who traffic drugs, cooperate in kidnappings, and abuse of the population. Better wages should accomplish something, and they are already being discussed.

Improving the wages of judges, to avoid easy corruption, and high level, honest investigations by the National Attorney, are some ways. Basically a huge cleanage. Burn it down and rebuild from scratch.


(Is that his tv show?)

Yep. It is pretty famous. He usually makes his inflammatory speeches there.

I would have thought reducing crime (thus stopping cargo being lost, increasing productivity) and stopping the black market (increasing wealth available to general public and state) would have been no brainers.

I agree, but what can I say, as I said before, security is not a priority for this goverment.

"WE"? Did you (Occean) vote for Chávez, I wonder?He's talking about the American Election back in 2000.Thank you LancasterC,

Thank you for taking care of that question.. one of my NewYear resolutions is to reduce my total forum time to 1 hour..
and (like Aggicificicerous says (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12600970#post12600970)) it has become physically impossible for me.. to reply all and every post directed @ me..


"With enemies like you, who needs friends?" ;)
OcceanDrive©2007 Quote

No "coincidence" involved--they went in there and did it.

With the permission of the venezuelan goverment.

Nope; if it were true, then economists, as scientists, would have abandoned that theory long ago.

What (too many) people seem to fail to understand is that economics is not normative but rather descriptive. Its purpose is not to tell you how things should be--that's the role of philosophy--but rather how things work in reality. Any "normative" guidelines people claim to derive from economics actually come from the particular school of political/social/ethical thought they subscribe to.

Economics can certainly tell you how to achieve a given goal, or what is the likely outcome of a given course of action, but it can't tell you what your goals should be, or whether the outcome of a given course of action is good or bad. For that you need philosophy.

Economics is a science, and like all sciences it is simply concerned with describing the world as it actually works.

Then please explain to me how your theory that "price controls always create shortages" describes the situation in Venezuela where there is no gasoline shortage despite the price controls.

Milton Friedman said "A government institution, that is not guided in its behavior by politics, is as likely as a barking cat".

You are proposing the existance of a barking cat.

Co-gestion =/= to government institution. It is a state-worker partnership and as such allows a greater degree of control by the workers yet whilst allowing the state to work rationally. It allows a seperation of power and keeps the state able to intergrate the other various co-gestion set ups.

That said, let me take a different tack. In a nationalised economy, there can be no market prices. This is because market prices are determined by supply and demand between private owners throughout the economic system. A state pricing/planning board cannot replicate this function.

Did I say I supported a completely planned economy? Almost all national economies are partially planned anyway.

If it was a total monopoly of a single state company then it would require complete planned economy but a having a nationalised industry either as seperate, non monopolising organisations (such as multiple companies) or as a series of different managerial opinions in a state monopoly (such as millitary strategists or having multiple healthcare theorists) can help to reduce totalarianarism in state systems.

What many people seem to forget that private institutions work out what prices should be using mathmatical formulae then try to tweak it to make it what they want it to be.

Nationalising of oil fields has not worked well, the oil situation of the Soviet Union shows that, and more to the point, government control of oil does not lead to good things. Without government control of oil, Saddam Hussein would have been a little joke, an Arab Bokassa. Without government control of oil, Saudi Arabia would not be exporting its disgusting brand of Islam, creating terrorists all over the world.

Actually the former soviet union showed that you should be rational in your national economics and not simply give the company to people in power.

The 'privitisation' of former soviet areas was also an example of poor privitisation, as they were given to the most powerful of the government sycophants at the time.

If the state control of oil fields does not work well then how did Hussein manage to develop the second most (after Israel) powerful millitary in the middle east?

With complete private control of oil fields and production it would be like an OPEC but with even more price fluctuation to high prices.

Maybe but it is only an economic theory after all. Is there any nations that actually have such a system?

There has been autogestion in limited areas and Canada is using cogestion management styles in the northern areas with some natural resource ares.

The are many economic theories that have not been put into practice on a large scale.

No "coincidence" involved--they went in there and did it.

Who, exactly, went in, and what did they do? Vague claims do not make good arguments.

Then please explain to me how your theory that "price controls always create shortages" describes the situation in Venezuela where there is no gasoline shortage despite the price controls.

The keyword is "abundance". when you have a certain abundance of a certain resource, shortages are difficult to find, no matter what kind of controls you apply.

My bit about the Canadian health care system was just an example of how price controls do not necessarily create shortages.

It created one in Canada.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=849

Most discussions and studies have come to the conclusion that there are too few physicians practicing in Canada today. That conclusion is supported by the available evidence on Canadians’ unmet health care needs and the relative supply of physicians in this country. For example, in 2003 more than 1.2 million Canadians were unable to find a regular physician. Statistics also show that Canada had many fewer physicians per capita in 2002 than most other developed nations that have universal access health care insurance programs.

It created one in Canada.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=849

I was discussing price controls on medical supplies, not physicians, unless you think Canadians can buy doctors at controlled prices. Try to keep up.

EDIT: and your link does not even discuss price controls at all.

I was discussing price controls on medical supplies, not physicians, unless you think Canadians can buy doctors at controlled prices. Try to keep up.

We can see where price controls on medical services got Canada.

10,000 doctors educated in Canada fled to practice in the US.

Unless you plan on imprisoning Canadian-educated doctors so they don't flee, and force them to practice for the salary you "pay" them, you're going to have a doctor shortage.

That may well be. But I could say the same thing about free market policies.
Well, no, it can't.

A shortage occurs when the quantity demanded at a certain price exceeds the quantity supplied. In a fluid market, that cannot happen because prices and/or supplies adjust to meet the changing conditions.

For the same reason, gluts cannot happen in a fluid market.

And you are also forgetting that Venezuela has no gasoline shortage despite the price controls.
Yeah, it does.

Your assumption (that there was plenty of oil in Venezuela for Chavez to be able to send some of it to New Orleans without it impacting domestic availability), which has so far gone unchallenged, is false. Chavez put his own political ends above the welfare of his people in this case.

As for nationalisation, it is not theft as the companies whose assets are nationalised are paid back for those assets.
It's still theft. If I come to your house and take your computer, but leave enough cash on the table to replace it, I am still a thief.

It doesn't matter if the net financial loss to you is zero. It's theft because I took your property without your permission.

Neat. This is my first 'economics' debate ever. I hope I'm not doing too badly.

You'd do better if you'd stop conflating economics with political/social/ethical philosophy. The latter is important, and I deal in it a lot, but it is a separate discipline from economics.

The keyword is "abundance". when you have a certain abundance of a certain resource, shortages are difficult to find, no matter what kind of controls you apply.

I am sure there are many reasons why the Peanuts siblings are wrong with their theory, including a large supply relative to demand. By the way, how bad is the food shortage in Venezuela?

We can see where price controls on medical services got Canada.

10,000 doctors educated in Canada fled to practice in the US.

Unless you plan on imprisoning Canadian-educated doctors so they don't flee, and force them to practice for the salary you "pay" them, you're going to have a doctor shortage.

Show me a decent link or stop talking out of your ass. And nobody flees Canada.

The US free market system sure isn't providing a comparable percentage of people with family physicians.

How about expanding the train lines already being made, or finally spreading the network of highways to the entire country, or helping with the shortage of medicines and sugar, or beef? I could name at least a dozen uses for that money, better than just putting it into "awe inspiring" planes. Please inspire our awe with something useful. We really don't need to invest further in the military department.

The partnership with Cuba should help to alleviate the medical problem.

The reason why I brought it up was thinking that have a large core of engineers and workers in the millitary would both allow cheaper, public works to be built, such as highways and rail lines.

Greater amounts of cargo trains and oil/water pipelines would help the economy.

The plane purchasing does seem like a frivolous spend merely for public support.

What is wrong with your agricultural areas?

Improving the wages of judges, to avoid easy corruption, and high level, honest investigations by the National Attorney, are some ways. Basically a huge cleanage. Burn it down and rebuild from scratch.

A federal oversight committee with transcripts for every investigation? An open listing of judge spending and low tolerance of judges betraying their position would be good.

I agree, but what can I say, as I said before, security is not a priority for this goverment.

Whichdoes seem rather stupid, considering that a greater security would make them more likely to stay in power.

Yeah, it does.

Your assumption (that there was plenty of oil in Venezuela for Chavez to be able to send some of it to New Orleans without it impacting domestic availability), which has so far gone unchallenged, is false. Chavez put his own political ends above the welfare of his people in this case.


It's still theft. If I come to your house and take your computer, but leave enough cash on the table to replace it, I am still a thief.

It doesn't matter if the net financial loss to you is zero. It's theft because I took your property without your permission.

Sorry dear, there is no fuel shortage here. Not at all. Even with controls. I pay $1 for a full tank of gas, and there has always been plenty of it, with the exception of the times during the oil strike. There is NO shortage of gas in Venezuela. Believe me, I'm as far as 100 meters from a venezuelan gas station. I can see it from my window.

The oil fields are property of the República Bolivariana de Venezuela. They let the companies to exploit them, as in renting them. The fields were never sold, just rented, got it?

How does an economic coincidence give some random rich [Americ]an the right to own the profits extracted from another country's national resources?

What coincidence? I know you are using the word "coincidence", but you haven't grapsed that what you are talking about is not a coincidence.

It is not a coincidence that these oil companies found oil, and invested capital in its extraction, refining, and marketing.

It is a coincidence that it happens to have been situated in Venezuela.

The only people who can legitimately argue that it is not a coincidence are creationists (God's will that the oil is in Venezuela).

And what do you mean by develop, anyway?

So, you are saying that crude oil magically transforms itself into useful oil products, and magically teleports itself to the places in which it is required?

My bit about the Canadian health care system was just an example of how price controls do not necessarily create shortages.

In point of fact, there are extensive shortages in the Canadian health rationing system, the length of the waiting lists speaks for itself.

Heck, if I were Canadian, I would be a carcass.

Co-gestion =/= to government institution. It is a state-worker partnership and as such allows a greater degree of control by the workers yet whilst allowing the state to work rationally. It allows a seperation of power and keeps the state able to intergrate the other various co-gestion set ups.

Oh brother. Yet another socialist who thinks minor tweaking of the state central planning model will create enough economic differences to allow the thing to work.

There is no such thing as a "worker-state partnership", it is more accurately described as the state delegating a little authority to subordinates.

There can be no partnership when one of the partners has the power to kill/steal from/imprison the other partner.

Actually the former soviet union showed that you should be rational in your national economics and not simply give the company to people in power.

The USSR's oil sector went from massive exports, to dependence on the Persian Gulf.

With complete private control of oil fields and production it would be like an OPEC but with even more price fluctuation to high prices.

ROFLMAO!

OPEC is a grouping of governments of oil exporting countries. How the machinations of governments can compare with the free market is something you will have to explain.

If the state control of oil fields does not work well then how did Hussein manage to develop the second most (after Israel) powerful millitary in the middle east?

You really missed the point. That a maniac like him could build such powerful forces, and do such damage to his own country (as well as Iran and Kuwait) is a bad thing.

Can we reclaim every Citgo property in the US then? I hope you also agree with that, no? It is the same legitimacy concept you are applying.

What, if anything, do you mean by this? Who said anything about the US Government claiming anything.

The fact is that those Citgo properties are already owned by the Venezuelan government, just as the oil fields rightful owners are the shareholders of the oil companies.

As to the "nice deal", you don't make nice deals with people like the transnational oil companies, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Not thirty minutes ago, I made a deal with a multinational oil company. The fact is that the Chavez regime can repudiate any deal it makes in Venezuela with impunity, because it is the government. No company can do the same because the government which on the one hand repudiates its deals, enforces deals with its other hand.

Well considering that it lies under the territorial areas of the state of Venezuala it allows the state to own the land. Since Chavez is at the moment the head of state it falls partially under his power.

I asked for an explaination, not an elongated version of "might makes right".

It is a mere coincidence that the oil is in Venezuela, and not in Haiti.

A geological accident millions of years ago simply does not confer a rightful claim on a government that has been around for a mere fraction of a percent of that time, particularly since they risked, and invested nothing in extraction, refining, transporting, and marketing.

Only for the equipment (and even that is tenuous if the state feels that they were short changed). They have made their money back on the investment, with interest.

And the prospecting, and the evaluation of the raw data, and the refining, and the transportation, and the marketing.

This is all capital that they have risked.

That they have made a return on it does not confer a legitimate claim on the state that just happens to be there (and if history had gone some other way, may not have been there).

Most of the workers at that company are Venezuelan and as such are part of the society and state of Venezuela.

Which might arguably give the Venezuelan government the right to levy taxes against their incomes, but it does not confer a legitimate claim to the government.

Well, no, it can't.

A shortage occurs when the quantity demanded at a certain price exceeds the quantity supplied. In a fluid market, that cannot happen because prices and/or supplies adjust to meet the changing conditions.

For the same reason, gluts cannot happen in a fluid market.

This is another example of me drawing an observation from reality (food shortages in Venezuela are caused by a variety of factors, including a reduction in supply relative to demand), and then somebody attempts to counter it by repeating a theory that claims that the observed facts never happened.

Yeah, it does.

Your assumption (that there was plenty of oil in Venezuela for Chavez to be able to send some of it to New Orleans without it impacting domestic availability), which has so far gone unchallenged, is false. Chavez put his own political ends above the welfare of his people in this case.

You have yet to show me any proof or link or whatever that there is a gasoline shortage in Venezuela. If there was, people wouldn't be driving their cars very much, right? Yet Caracas has a problem because so many people are driving. Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1954813,00.html)

It's still theft. If I come to your house and take your computer, but leave enough cash on the table to replace it, I am still a thief.

It doesn't matter if the net financial loss to you is zero. It's theft because I took your property without your permission.

The theft of private property by one individual from another is not analogous to the nationalisation of assets by a democratically elected government of a foreign multinational corporation.

I am sure there are many reasons why the Peanuts siblings are wrong with their theory, including a large supply relative to demand. By the way, how bad is the food shortage in Venezuela?

Depends. Beef meat is over a huge shortage, and hard to find. The price regulations placed by the goverment aren't helping, and many producers argue that the current price is forcing them to sell meat losing money, or at least without any profit.

Sugar, oh my god. we have a huge problem with sugar. I have been forced to use splenda, which is expensive, and american. Is the current policy of my goverment forcing me to adquire an imported product of the empire we despise oh so much? Cubans have a lot of sugar, I don't get why they don't help us with that. We USED to have a lot of sugar too, before the goverment harmed the production.

For the rest, everything is ok, those are the two main issues.

Show me a decent link or stop talking out of your ass. And nobody flees Canada.

The US free market system sure isn't providing a comparable percentage of people with family physicians.

I already showed you do a decent link showing the shortage in Canada. An entire study. I guess you can't be bothered with real evidence.

The US free market system sure isn't providing a comparable percentage of people with family physicians.

That's not evidence of a shortage, nor is it disproof of the theory.

Remember, in the economic sense (which is what has to be considered when evaluating the accuracy of an economic theory), a shortage can only be said to exist when the quantity demanded at a certain price exceeds the quantity supplied.

In other words, it's not a shortage just because not everyone has one, or even not everyone who might in some abstract sense like to have one has one, but rather when the amount of the given good or service people are willing to purchase at the current price exceeds the amount actually available.

Now, as this applies to health care, whether the situation as it exists in the US is a good or bad thing is an important question, but not within the purview of economics. It is a philosophical question--a value judgment.

The partnership with Cuba should help to alleviate the medical problem.

The reason why I brought it up was thinking that have a large core of engineers and workers in the millitary would both allow cheaper, public works to be built, such as highways and rail lines.

Greater amounts of cargo trains and oil/water pipelines would help the economy.

The plane purchasing does seem like a frivolous spend merely for public support.

What is wrong with your agricultural areas?

Underdeveloped. The lands owned both by the goverment and the private land owners are idle. Noone seems to like to invest in agriculture anymore, in fear of "invasions". I think both the public and the private sectors are making huge mistakes there.

The problem with the medical situation is not of personnel, but of infraestructure. The Hospitals have no equipment, although they have doctors. My older brother is chief of a ER in a hospital on a rather...poor community in Caracas. sometimes, they have been forced to put staples over wounds because they do not have needles and surgical equipment. Go figure it. I am witness that the venezuelan doctors work hard.

I have met some cuban doctors here, they are good people and really willing to help, the problem is...They do not have equipment neither. The goverment is addressing the problem in the wrong way.

Nice idea, the one of the engineers, I concur. I also agree with the planes bit.

A federal oversight committee with transcripts for every investigation? An open listing of judge spending and low tolerance of judges betraying their position would be good.

Whichdoes seem rather stupid, considering that a greater security would make them more likely to stay in power.


Yep, that is exactly what I think. The open listing initiative is good.

And a goverment providing security would receive a huge popular support.

What coincidence? I know you are using the word "coincidence", but you haven't grapsed that what you are talking about is not a coincidence.

It is not a coincidence that these oil companies found oil, and invested capital in its extraction, refining, and marketing.

It is a coincidence that it happens to have been situated in Venezuela.

The only people who can legitimately argue that it is not a coincidence are creationists (God's will that the oil is in Venezuela).



So, you are saying that crude oil magically transforms itself into useful oil products, and magically teleports itself to the places in which it is required?



In point of fact, there are extensive shortages in the Canadian health rationing system, the length of the waiting lists speaks for itself.

Heck, if I were Canadian, I would be a carcass.

So, if some person, by coincidence of birth, inherits stock in Exxon and thereby derives profits from extracting oil in Venezuela, this is somehow more moral or deserving than the Venezuelan labouree who actually worked in the fields?

And I am not saying that crude oil magically transforms itself into useful oil products, and magically teleports itself to the places in which it is required. I am saying you are being unclear when you use the word 'develop'.

And as a user of the Canadian health care sytem, I would have you know that I have not personally encountered any such shortage. But we are discussing Venezuela, not Canada.

How does a geographical coincidence give Chavez the right to own and control oil fields?

He can nationalize anything within his own borders regardless of who owns them.

This is another example of me drawing an observation from reality (food shortages in Venezuela are caused by a variety of factors, including a reduction in supply relative to demand), and then somebody attempts to counter it by repeating a theory that claims that the observed facts never happened.
Sorry, but that's completely incoherent.

You have yet to show me any proof or link or whatever that there is a gasoline shortage in Venezuela.
(1) I was speaking of Autumn 2005, not the present
(2) I'm afraid I don't remember where I learned every single bit of information I know. I'll be at the library later today and I'll see if I can find it again.

If there was, people wouldn't be driving their cars very much, right?
Well, not necessarily. Remember the definition of "shortage" I gave above, and see if you can figure out why.

The theft of private property by one individual from another is not analogous to the nationalisation of assets by a democratically elected government of a foreign multinational corporation.

It certainly is. Just because "the people" approve of it doesn't make it any morally superior to a single individual doing it on his own.

He can nationalize anything within his own borders regardless of who owns them.

There is a difference between "what he can get away with" and "what is right".

Sorry dear, there is no fuel shortage here. Not at all. Even with controls. I pay $1 for a full tank of gas, and there has always been plenty of it, with the exception of the times during the oil strike. There is NO shortage of gas in Venezuela. Believe me, I'm as far as 100 meters from a venezuelan gas station. I can see it from my window.

It is a major epistemological fallacy to derive a general picture from a single anecdote.

That you don't notice anything yourself is irrelevant. "Shortages" occur on a macroeconomic scale.

To decide whether or not a shortage exists, the question that must be asked is: Is there, overall, a greater desire for gasoline at its current price than the quantity that is actually available?

I already showed you do a decent link showing the shortage in Canada. An entire study. I guess you can't be bothered with real evidence.


I will type slowly for you. Your link does not show that price controls create a shortage of medical suplies or anything else in the Canadian health care system.

Please note that this study was paid for by the Fraser Institute who are a free market think tank that pushes an agenda to get rid of our health care system. But I am not going to dismiss the study because of that. I am dismissing it because it does not claim what you say it claims.

Your study claims that the doctor shortage is a result of government intervention in medical school admissions and immigration of doctors from abroad. Price controls are not mentioned anywhere in the study.

Did you even read it? It's only eleven pages.

He can nationalize anything within his own borders regardless of who owns them.

Again, the State OWNS the fields. ALWAYS. Do you know what a concession is? Never a foreign oil company owned an oil field here in the last years.

Thank you LancasterC

It is not a problem.

So, if some person, by coincidence of birth, inherits stock in Exxon and thereby derives profits from extracting oil in Venezuela, this is somehow more moral or deserving than the Venezuelan labouree who actually worked in the fields?

The labourer is paid for his work. His claim ends when the pay arrives.

As to your talk of inheriting stock, it is nothing more than a red herring. I am not going to argue over the rightness of inheritance, and this thread is not about inheritance, and it is not by coincidence of birth, it is a gift. The motivation behind giving the gift is irrelevant.

The fact is that the stockholders are the legitimate owners of a company, and the company is the leigitmate owner of the oil fields.

And I am not saying that crude oil magically transforms itself into useful oil products, and magically teleports itself to the places in which it is required. I am saying you are being unclear when you use the word 'develop'.

How exactly am I being unclear?

He can nationalize anything within his own borders regardless of who owns them.

Am I stuttering or something?

I am quite aware that Chavez has the power to steal anything within the reach of his army and police. What I am saying is that he does not have the right to do it.

Again, the State OWNS the fields. ALWAYS. Do you know what a concession is? Never a foreign oil company owned an oil field here in the last years.

The states does not own them rightfully. Their ownership of the oil fields is nothing more than theft. The state sees a cash cow, so it says "MINE!", and sends the army and police lest anyone protest.

It is a major epistemological fallacy to derive a general picture from a single anecdote.

That you don't notice anything yourself is irrelevant. "Shortages" occur on a macroeconomic scale.

To decide whether or not a shortage exists, the question that must be asked is: Is there, overall, a greater desire for gasoline at its current price than the quantity that is actually available?

It is quite silly to deny the effect of microeconomics in the macro, although.

During an oil strike, back in 2005, the production stopped, and given the fact we are speaking of a product with a high, continous demand, you will have a shortage, yet that wasn't a consequence of the price controls, as you seem to be saying, but a consequence of a entirely different variable.

Apart from that, there haven't been any shortages here. By your formal, correct definition by the book, I state, with plenty of knowledge, that no, the desire, or demand, for gasoline at its current price is not higher, or hasn't been higher lately, than the quantity that is actually available, meaning the offer.

The states does not own them rightfully. Their ownership of the oil fields is nothing more than theft. The state sees a cash cow, so it says "MINE!", and sends the army and police lest anyone protest.

And the ownership of the oil companies is rightfully exactly why? The state own those fields from the beginning, even before they were oil fields.

I think you fail at basic concepts, go back to college, university or whatever and try again.

And the ownership of the oil companies is rightfully exactly why?

No one else rightfully owned that land before they found oil, and set up their operation.

The state own those fields from the beginning, even before they were oil fields.

How so? The only way is if the state rightfully owns everything in a country. Does that mean that when Chavez's thugs take your property, you will give it willingly, because it was his to begin with?

Anyway, the Venezuelan government wasn't around when the oil first formed, and they have governed that area for a perhaps less than a thousandth of the time the oil has existed, so your claim that they owned the oil fields for several million years is simply absurd.

For someone who claims to oppose Chavez, you sure talk like a socialist.

I think you fail at basic concepts, go back to college, university or whatever and try again.

What?! You who have not even heard of homesteading!

Sorry, but that's completely incoherent.

I showed you an observation. You said that it was wrong and repeated some theory. If an observation and a theory contradict each other, the theory is wrong, or at least incomplete. Your theory is therefore wrong or incomplete.


(1) I was speaking of Autumn 2005, not the present
(2) I'm afraid I don't remember where I learned every single bit of information I know. I'll be at the library later today and I'll see if I can find it again.

That would be great, thanks.


Well, not necessarily. Remember the definition of "shortage" I gave above, and see if you can figure out why.

Sorry, but I would like you to spell it out for me. I'm not that bright about economic matters. But if you are as good as you say, you should have no trouble explaining it to me. I don't want this to sound assholish or snarky. I really would appreciate it if you could clarify this for me.


It certainly is. Just because "the people" approve of it doesn't make it any morally superior to a single individual doing it on his own

Not really. The actions between the individuals only impact them, but nationalisation of the type we are discussing affects a large group of people. Sometimes, it is in the best interests of this larger group of people for nationalisation to occur. Thus, there is a qualitataive difference between the two acts. Not to mention that one is illegal, and the other is not.

Not really. The actions between the individuals only impact them, but nationalisation of the type we are discussing affects a large group of people. Sometimes, it is in the best interests of this larger group of people for nationalisation to occur. Thus, there is a qualitataive difference between the two acts. Not to mention that one is illegal, and the other is not.

No, he is right. The fact that a mob of people, whether hiding behind the law, or a lynch mob, commit a crime does not make it less criminal.

No one else rightfully owned that land before they found oil, and set up their operation.

How so? The only way is if the state rightfully owns everything in a country. Does that mean that when Chavez's thugs take your property, you will give it willingly, because it was his to begin with?

Anyway, the Venezuelan government wasn't around when the oil first formed, and they have governed that area for a perhaps less than a thousandth of the time the oil has existed, so your claim that they owned the oil fields for several million years is simply absurd.

For someone who claims to oppose Chavez, you sure talk like a socialist.

What?! You who have not even heard of homesteading!

Oh, please tell you are either trolling, you are trying to make me mad just for the fun of it, or you are an aspergerian...

We have this law, called the constitution, that says that every bit of land falls under the jurisdiction of the venezuelan state. It is quite important here, you know?, and we base our actions on that legal text.

Since the nation exists, it owns those fields. Period, before anyone know there was oil there, and before they were oil fields, not before they were oil reserves. Please don't tell me I have to explain the difference.

Oh, I'm a centrist myself, but I can be a socialist and oppose Chávez at the same time, chauvinist.

And if my property holds something of national value, yes, the State, and not Chávez thugs, can take it from me, and give me a proportional reward for it. Happened with the buildings that were in the places where now the subway stations stand, for example.

We have this law, called the constitution, that says that every bit of land falls under the jurisdiction of the venezuelan state. It is quite important here, you know?, and we base our actions on that legal text.

Jurisdiction means just that. It does not mean ownership. It means that disputes arising over it are heard in Venezuelan courts, and that when you call the cops, you call Venezuelan cops. It does not mean ownership.

Since the nation exists, it owns those fields.

Sorry, you aren't making your case. I want you to argue why the state has the right to own those oil fields. You are not arguing that they have that right, merely that they have the might to do it.

Oh, I'm a centrist myself, but I can be a socialist and oppose Chávez at the same time, chauvinist.

You're a centrist who favours total government ownership. I suppose you know a fascist who favours personal freedom, and a Nazi who favours racial tolerance.

And if my property holds something of national value, yes, the State, and not Chávez thugs, can take it from me, and give me a proportional reward for it. Happened with the buildings that were in the places where now the subway stations stand, for example.

There is no such thing as a proprotional reward for taking something. An appropriate reward is the market price, and that can only exist if you were already willing to sell.

In Venezuela, there is no difference between Chavez's thugs, and the state. Chavez and his thugs control the state.

The labourer is paid for his work. His claim ends when the pay arrives.

According to you, but I think the investor's claim ends after receiving a reasonable return. After that reasonable return is paid, I do not think that the investor should continue to receive profits since they are no longer adding any value.

As to your talk of inheriting stock, it is nothing more than a red herring. I am not going to argue over the rightness of inheritance, and this thread is not about inheritance, and it is not by coincidence of birth, it is a gift. The motivation behind giving the gift is irrelevant.

The fact is that the stockholders are the legitimate owners of a company, and the company is the leigitmate owner of the oil fields.

The Venezuelan state is the legitimate owner of the oil fields. This has been mentioned several times in this thread. And with this latest deal, the Venezuelan state also owns 60% of the stock in the oil extraction and refinery projects on those fields. So, by your logic, the Venezuelan state is in the right.


How exactly am I being unclear?

In this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12602019&postcount=115), you argued that the oil companies had more of a right to the oil due to the fact that they developed it. I just wanted to know what you meant by 'develop'. It ties into my inheritance thing because the guy who inherits the stock did absolutely nothing to develop the Venezuelan oil fields.

Jurisdiction means just that. It does not mean ownership. It means that disputes arising over it are heard in Venezuelan courts, and that when you call the cops, you call Venezuelan cops. It does not mean ownership.

Jurisdiction means ownership if the State considers the ownership of said land affects nationwide interest. It is in the law, sorry.

Sorry, you aren't making your case. I want you to argue why the state has the right to own those oil fields. You are not arguing that they have that right, merely that they have the might to do it.

I am making it. That measure is contemplated in the law. The state has the right to do so because it is a right guaranteed by the law. The oil companies should had revised the law first. Law gives rights, not might.

By which law you give rights to the oil companies?

You're a centrist who favours total government ownership. I suppose you know a fascist who favours personal freedom, and a Nazi who favours racial tolerance.

I am a centrist that believe in both socialist and liberalist policies. I believe in the right of a goverment to reclaim land if the nationwide interests are affected.

There is no such thing as a proprotional reward for taking something. An appropriate reward is the market price, and that can only exist if you were already willing to sell.

In Venezuela, there is no difference between Chavez's thugs, and the state. Chavez and his thugs control the state.

In Venezuela, where you have never been and I happen to live, there is a State. If you call every goverment official a Chávez thug, your problem.

I won't keep throwing treats at you. I already made my points, and I am getting tired of repeating them.

No, he is right. The fact that a mob of people, whether hiding behind the law, or a lynch mob, commit a crime does not make it less criminal.

How about the fact that it is not illegal? Wouldn't that make it less criminal?

According to you,

No, the worker contracted to do specific work for a specific wage. Once the work is done, and the payment made, the transaction ends. It is that simple.

but I think the investor's claim ends after receiving a reasonable return.

Define reasonable return, and explain how getting a reasonable return on investment legitimately removes their ownership?

The Venezuelan state is the legitimate owner of the oil fields.

Neither you, nor anyone else has actually argued that. It has been asserted, nothing more.

So, by your logic, the Venezuelan state is in the right.

The owners of that stock did not willingly sell it to the state. What you are talking about is more accurately described as Chavez letting the oil companies keep 40%.

I just wanted to know what you meant by 'develop'.

What did you think I meant by find, extract, refine, transport, and market. The stockholders provide the capital for that. They provide the capital in exchange for owning a portion of of the company.

What you're talking about applies only to bondholders, not stock holders. Bondholders are of course out of the loop when their bonds mature, and they are paid off.

Jurisdiction means ownership if the State considers the ownership of said land affects nationwide interest. It is in the law, sorry.

No, it doesn't, look it up.

I am making it.

If you are actually arguing it, then your argument boils down to argument by assertion.

The state has the right to do so because it is a right guaranteed by the law.

What law? Where in the law? Lets see the law here.

I am a centrist that believe in both socialist and liberalist policies.

Actually, you have said that the state rightfully owns everything in its borders, that is socialist, no matter how many times you say "centrist".

I already made my points, and I am getting tired of repeating them.

That's just it. You keep saying that you have made your arguments, but I see nothing but assertions, with no argument behind them. You have not made your points at all. Lets see some argument behind them. Not just law, but the moral basis for the state owning everything in the country.

You just need to claim "I win" now. Make my day.

It is a coincidence that it happens to have been situated in Venezuela.

That decreases the right of the country that encompases that land how?

In point of fact, there are extensive shortages in the Canadian health rationing system, the length of the waiting lists speaks for itself.

Part of that problem is the politicising the health care service and underfunding both the infrastructure, the lack of promoting an abundance of professional healthcare workers and not investing in new research which would allow cheaper, more effective treatments and new export opportunities.

Oh brother. Yet another socialist who thinks minor tweaking of the state central planning model will create enough economic differences to allow the thing to work.

Actually it is quite a large difference and would help to eliminate inequality in the workplace as well as making the worker more involved in his or her workplace, increasing productivity.

There is no such thing as a "worker-state partnership", it is more accurately described as the state delegating a little authority to subordinates.

Yet in an open democracy they have the majority of authority in their workplace as well as being able to choose how their state is governed.

There can be no partnership when one of the partners has the power to kill/steal from/imprison the other partner.

It may not seem like an equal partnership for the individual but it is for all of the workers of the facaillity where co-gestion is set up.

OPEC is a grouping of governments of oil exporting countries. How the machinations of governments can compare with the free market is something you will have to explain.

It is an example of a monopoly/cartel. In the 'free market' setting oil companies would general try to either become a monopoly or take the less risky approach and become a cartel.

You really missed the point. That a maniac like him could build such powerful forces, and do such damage to his own country (as well as Iran and Kuwait) is a bad thing.

The only reason why he did damage was because he was a dictator who decided to invade Iran with U.S.A backing and when that failed tried to boost oil production by invading Kuwait and making the U.S.A attack him.

If he cared about his country (benevolent dictator) or the country was a democracy then they would have most likely not invaded Iran (and if that had not happened then they would have not needed to invade kuwait).

The fact is that those Citgo properties are already owned by the Venezuelan government, just as the oil fields rightful owners are the shareholders of the oil companies.

They only have a lease on the land. They were allowed to start exploration in that area by the state. It is not an eternal lease either.

I asked for an explaination, not an elongated version of "might makes right".

It is a mere coincidence that the oil is in Venezuela, and not in Haiti.

Yet due to that coincidence the oil lies within Venezuelan territorial areas and as such is theirs. Same as airflight space belonging to the state.

A geological accident millions of years ago simply does not confer a rightful claim on a government that has been around for a mere fraction of a percent of that time, particularly since they risked, and invested nothing in extraction, refining, transporting, and marketing.

It does confer the ownership of that resource since it is there now. If the facillities are nationalised (with compensation, unless the company performed illegal methods which would decrease the amount of money they could claim) then their is no real problem in terms of inequal repratriations.

And the prospecting, and the evaluation of the raw data, and the refining, and the transportation, and the marketing.

This is all capital that they have risked.

Yet risk is not factored in afterwards. It is only the cost of money they spent on making the equipment. Employment costs and marketing costs are not factored into it because those were spent on the resource that was exported, not the resource that still resides in the ground.

That they have made a return on it does not confer a legitimate claim on the state that just happens to be there (and if history had gone some other way, may not have been there).

Yet at that moment the Venezuelan state does exist there and as such is quite able to own land and provide regulation for land it owns and the land that lies in its jurisdiction.

Which might arguably give the Venezuelan government the right to levy taxes against their incomes, but it does not confer a legitimate claim to the government.

It confers a legitamate claim for the state and society of Venezuela. The government is merely the part of the state.

No one else rightfully owned that land before they found oil, and set up their operation.

Why did the state not have the right to that land before that?

If you owned a large tract of land amd I wandered onto your land and built a house on that would I have the same right to do that?

Anyway, the Venezuelan government wasn't around when the oil first formed, and they have governed that area for a perhaps less than a thousandth of the time the oil has existed, so your claim that they owned the oil fields for several million years is simply absurd.

They own the land. They exist there now. How would an oil company have right to the oil in that land using your logic?

For someone who claims to oppose Chavez, you sure talk like a socialist.

You do know that socialism is a nebulous concept, just like capitalism is, don't you? Neither have a single homogonous opinion on everything.

I am a socialist I oppose several of his major policies.

No, the worker contracted to do specific work for a specific wage. Once the work is done, and the payment made, the transaction ends. It is that simple.

According to your economic model, which is not universal.

Define reasonable return, and explain how getting a reasonable return on investment legitimately removes their ownership?

What I am trying to say, rather badly, is that we define a worker's daily wages as reasonable return, yet stockholders get to keep making money in perpetuity even though they only put their money down once. Seems to me like an unfair way to define 'reasonable return'. If I was a better socialist, I would describe the socialist economic model that defined 'reasonable return' differently. But I am not a good socialist, so I will simply point out what I see as wrong with the capitalist model.

Neither you, nor anyone else has actually argued that. It has been asserted, nothing more.

We are pointing out the fact that the oil companies never owned the land that is the oil fields. Nothing more. We are not arguing about whether it is moral or right for the Venezuelan state to do so, got it?

The owners of that stock did not willingly sell it to the state. What you are talking about is more accurately described as Chavez letting the oil companies keep 40%.

I think that's pretty generous considering how important the oil industry to Venezuela. Many other countries would nationalise the industry outright or only allow Venezuelan companies to participate, like the US does with its defense industry.

What did you think I meant by find, extract, refine, transport, and market. The stockholders provide the capital for that. They provide the capital in exchange for owning a portion of of the company.

Thanks for the definition. The Venezuelan state, and the citizens who worked there, also worked in the finding, extracting, refining, transporting and marketing. But according to you, their contribution is not worthy of recompense like the stockholders are. Why is that?

What you're talking about applies only to bondholders, not stock holders. Bondholders are of course out of the loop when their bonds mature, and they are paid off.

Maybe multinationals seeking to invest in Venezuela should have bondholders instead of stockholders. Would that work? I hoestly have no idea, but it seems fairer to everybody than the current situation.

Isn't it ironic that a lot of people who oppose socialism don't realize that their own non-socialist governments have the principle of eminent domain - where the government can just take land?

ROFLCOPTER

It's not that simple, since the US oil companies can always go to the current regime controlling the USA and ask them to invade/liberate any country with substantial amounts of oil that won't let them take oil out of the ground and profits out of the country.

Yeah, like that'll be happening. Not even 9/11 could give the paltry justification required for a US invasion of Venezuela.

Yeah, like that'll be happening. Not even 9/11 could give the paltry justification required for a US invasion of Venezuela.
It happens in Gift-of-God's mind because Chavez is all knowing and all wise.

Actually, you have said that the state rightfully owns everything in its borders, that is socialist, no matter how many times you say "centrist".

You do realise that socialism does not have a homogenous opinion on everything don't you?

There is a large difference of opinion just within the anti-state camp.

An example in this case is Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Socialism and Libertarian Socialism. Each of those (especially the last two) also have differences of opinion.

Several theories of the state (including economic capitalist theories) theories also have the state (as a group of individual) either having a nominal claim to everything in its borders or have the state owning everything.

Oh, please tell you are either trolling, you are trying to make me mad just for the fun of it, or you are an aspergerian...

We have this law, called the constitution, that says that every bit of land falls under the jurisdiction of the venezuelan state. It is quite important here, you know?, and we base our actions on that legal text.

Jurisdiction is not the same as ownership Aelosia. The lands of the nation I am in is under the jurisdiction of the American State. That does not mean that the state owns the land. The only federally owned lands are those of the US Military Bases as well National Parks.

Since the nation exists, it owns those fields. Period, before anyone know there was oil there, and before they were oil fields, not before they were oil reserves. Please don't tell me I have to explain the difference.

WRONG! The state did not own the fields. They were owned by private companies. BIG DIFFERENCE! That is like President Bush stating that they own all industries because America Exists. That is incorrect.

Oh, I'm a centrist myself, but I can be a socialist and oppose Chávez at the same time, chauvinist.

Agreed.

[quote[And if my property holds something of national value, yes, the State, and not Chávez thugs, can take it from me, and give me a proportional reward for it. Happened with the buildings that were in the places where now the subway stations stand, for example.[/QUOTE]

That is called Eminit Domain. That is totally separate animal.

It happens in Gift-of-God's mind because Chavez is all knowing and all wise.

...what? Even if I accepted that he thinks that (which I don't), Chavez's wisdom has no bearing on whether the US would invade Venezuela.

Isn't it ironic that a lot of people who oppose socialism don't realize that their own non-socialist governments have the principle of eminent domain - where the government can just take land?

ROFLCOPTER

not just eminent domain, but the mere existence of taxation itself is 'socialism'. i'm surprised anyone takes these people at all seriously. always seem more like 'pat on the head' types to me.

Yeah, like that'll be happening. Not even 9/11 could give the paltry justification required for a US invasion of Venezuela.

I doubt very much that the USA would invade Venezuela. It would be easier to assume control over the Venezuelan resources by supporting a coup and installing a puppet dictator. That way the country could be 'liberated' without having to justify an invasion to the UN or the US populace.

It happens in Gift-of-God's mind because Chavez is all knowing and all wise.

Yes. And I love to rim his never-winking brown eye too.:rolleyes:

Come back when you have something intelligent to post.

10,000 doctors educated in Canada fled to practice in the US.

Unless you plan on imprisoning Canadian-educated doctors so they don't flee, and force them to practice for the salary you "pay" them, you're going to have a doctor shortage.all Canada needs to do is.. reform the (Health fields) loans and bursaries structure.
We can see where price controls on medical services got Canada.all things considered.. Health care in Canada is more efficient than the US Health care system.

Are the oil companies buying millions of dollars worth of the latest Russian fighter jets?
What significance does the origin of their defence purchases have? And how many jets do you get for a million dollars anyway? I'm thinking $1M might get you some spare parts.


It is the selfish pursuit of private profit that is the most moral end one can aim for. That's an odd thing to say. The selfish pursuit of anything is simply amoral, since it takes no account of the interests of others. It would follow from this that you hold any other end to be immoral or amoral. If the later, you would be an amoralist, so why comment on morality? Or did I miss a joke here?

Keep that in mind when you turn 28 (if you haven't already).
It's the oil (and coal) that fueled the Industrial Revolution that has pushed the average human life span in the Western world past that age.
So once you turn 28, your own life becomes base and evil, according to you.Now that's just bad statistics. A ten-year-old has a higher life-expectancy than the average life-expectancy, a twenty-year-old higher still. "Average life expectancy" is measured from birth. Clever point though.


*snip*First post of any substance in this thread. Well done.


You should really quote your sources. Since the actual Financial Times article requires a subscription, I found this article instead which says basically the same thing:
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2006/04/28/venezuelaoil.shtml
Thanks.


That is not a good quality to want in your leader, it leads to institutionalised jingoism and brinkmanship.Boom! I think was the engine-room, OD! You're sinking!


It seems like you people are being overly harsh on OcceanDrive. I may not have witnessed his other antics which so many of you are judging him on, but does that mean that you should constantly harass him for his opinion? Blaming him for not responding to all posts is rather unfair, considering all the posts he has to respond to.
Unfair perhaps, but OD seems to thrive on it. There is a degree of gloating in the OP which hardly invites polite enquiry.

As for the actual situation, it hinges on how effective Chavez's boys are at extracting oil compared to the corporate ones. I doubt they can compare, but I'm not all that well acquainted with oil drilling procedures; even Chavez doesn't get as much oil every day, is that bad? Is that excess oil wasted, or can he just get it later?

As for what he will spend the money on, I do notice that he spends quite a bit on education and other such welfare-related areas. He does spend on the military, but his military spending can't compare to a great deal of other countries.*Applause*


...You sound quite confused. First you say that the oil fields were state property to begin with. Then you suggest that Chavez just 'stole them' from some capitalists. You don't know what words mean, do you?
*snip*Hey, go easy on my pet market-fundy. I'm dying to hear Meso's opinions on a few other subjects, so don't scare him/her off. ;)


*snip*
The alternative is badly managed oil fields.
You chose not to address the interesting idea that an inability to pump as much oil as the multinational interests can, leaves more oil in the ground. That could be a long-term advantage?
Perhaps so, soldiers aren't really trained to manage oil industries. But what is his fault is that he is imposing his less effective management over the more effective management.
I'm sure you'll agree that only the market can decide which management regime will work best. Not you or I or any other armchair expert.
If you had any interest in looking at Chavez's regime in any depth, Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! Claiming to be an expert is raising the stakes. Sure you want to do that?
you would see that democracy in the present in Venezuela is questionable, and democracy in the future in Venezuela is doubtful. The fact that he can rule by decree means that any assurances that Venezuela will continue to be democratic in any meaningful sense will be hollow assurances.Empty doomsaying.
What is however not open to question is that the Chavez regime, however democratic it is or isn't, does not leave the people free to do as they wish. His regime is attempting to control more and more sectors of society.Yep, those pesky socialists will do that. You'd better keep a close eye on them, just in case they don't implode the economy and incite a revolt of the people, and need kicking out by force of US arms. Bay of Pigs, anyone?


It's not that simple, since the US oil companies can always go to the current regime controlling the USA and ask them to invade/liberate any country with substantial amounts of oil that won't let them take oil out of the ground and profits out of the country. When the state and the corporation join hands, you get the Biggest Oil and the Biggest Guns.
That would be an interpretation of the Iraq invasion, I guess.
I love how people make baseless claims about Chavez after reading some economic theory that already agrees with their politics. If this is what's really happening, it should not take more than a few seconds to prove it. The only mentions of gas shortages were during the general strike against his government in 2002 (link) (http://english.people.com.cn/200212/22/eng20021222_108929.shtml) . By 2005, there was apparently enough gasoline that he sent an additional 1 million barrels to the USA after Katrina. Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702235_pf.html).
That's enough now. A fella can only read so much ...
Right. Which is why he goes around the world making deals with other countries so that they invest in Venezuelan infrastructure. Link (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17333)
*snip*
I can't bear to watch...


Nationalisations make me angry. They make me want to support companies hiring their own private armies and protecting what they built.
Sure, makes sense where no national government can enforce their own law. I think directly contesting ownership of the nationalized assets with an national government would be kind of expensive though. And the assets would almost certainly end up destroyed, so it's hard to see this being a really good investment on your part. :p


What he said wasn't entirely correct, but the fact that price controls in Venezuela are failing is.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6c814838-aca8-11db-9318-0000779e2340.html
How terrible! They can't keep petrol at US 10c/litre! Pathetic attempt at socialism! Shopkeepers complain they can't make money with price controls, and people stealing and hording. Good case against price controls.
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9010908
Oh, and look at that inflation rate of 20%. That's bad, yeah, but it's lurching around. And growth of 10%/annum seems a little high. More socialist bungling -- aren't they supposed to stagnate like Cuba?

I won't whine about bias, since I'm not offering any counter-links.
But surely from your perspective, price controls would be a bad thing? Wouldn't you want them to fail?
Though they'd be pretty silly to do deals with someone who has a habit of stealing from his business partners.
Think they can't find money from some source more interested in standing up to the US than making a safe profit? Can't think of one or two governments around the world who might almost give them the money?
Also, I suppose rent controls come to mind. As a Vietnamese minister once said: "The Americans couldn't destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city by very low rents. We realized it was stupid and that we must change policy."

Once Venezuela has reached Zimbabwean levels, maybe it will dawn on people. Until then, I'm resigned to the fact that populists always seem to find a way to repeat past mistakes. I just wish they'd limit the damage they do to themselves and their voters, and wouldn't pull in innocent people.
You're a big heart, Neu. If Venezuela doesn't go the way of Zimbabwe, I almost trust you to change your mind. I'll admit I don't know the future, we'll have to see.
Fact: In low income countries multinational corporations pay their workers more than double what domestic employers pay.
OK. Fact.


"WE"? Did you vote for Chávez, I wonder?Boy, did you ever read that wrong! :p



By 2005, there was apparently enough gasoline that he sent an additional 1 million barrels to the USA after Katrina.Which is done because it is more profitable (thanks to price controls) to send it to the US than sell it at home.The gasoline was offered by Citgo, wholly owned by the Venezuelan government. Whether it was to make a buck or make a point, I think we can assume that pure market forces might not entirely account for it. :p

---------------------------------------------

Phew! Still pages behind the current posts. I'll have to resume later.
I commend OcceanDrive's knack of starting threads that go and go and go. How does he do it?

Phew! Still pages behind the current posts. I'll have to resume later.

It is kept alive primarily by 2-4 people after a while though it did seem to get meatier to me.

I commend OcceanDrive's knack of starting threads that go and go and go. How does he do it?

I don't know but I'd like to find out. Maybe it is the smilies used?

I don't know but I'd like to find out. Maybe it is the smilies used?
Either that or the ## before the thread title.

Either that or the ## before the thread title.

Almost like s/he was trying to make it at the top of an alphebetic listing...

Phew! Still pages behind the current posts. I'll have to resume later.

..threads that go and go and go. How does he do it?Phew indeed..

and sometimes I have to read it back and forth.. many posts I did re-read 3-4 times..

but it is the price I have to pay.

Unfair perhaps, but OD seems to thrive on it. There is a degree of gloating....
...
I commend OcceanDrive's knack of starting threads that go and go and go. How does he do it?
I don't know but I'd like to find out.You'd like to find out?

Its a secret, If I tell you.. I'll have to **** you :D

Yay for bullshit socialism!

That decreases the right of the country that encompases that land how?

I've heard no argument that the country has such a right. I've merely heard the assertion.

I do not accept government ownership as a given, you will have to argue a moral basis for it.

Actually it is quite a large difference and would help to eliminate inequality in the workplace as well as making the worker more involved in his or her workplace, increasing productivity.

No it isn't. In the first place, I don't see how it can increase efficiency, and in the second place, the fundamental economic problem of socialism isn't worker productivity, indeed, in socialism, worker productivity cannot be quantified.

It is an example of a monopoly/cartel. In the 'free market' setting oil companies would general try to either become a monopoly or take the less risky approach and become a cartel.

Except that cartels in a free market do not work, and a monopoly is a grant of government privilege.

The only reason why he did damage was because he was a dictator who decided to invade Iran with U.S.A backing and when that failed tried to boost oil production by invading Kuwait and making the U.S.A attack him.

No, he could not have done this unless he was sitting on a huge reserve of oil.

Without those huge oil reserves, he would simply have been an Arab Bokassa.

Yet due to that coincidence the oil lies within Venezuelan territorial areas and as such is theirs. Same as airflight space belonging to the state.

Again, argument by assertion.

It does confer the ownership of that resource since it is there now.

By what right? You keep arguing by assertion. That simply isn't good enough. You're going to have to actually make a case, rather than simply asserting that the Venezuelan government rightfully owns everything within the borders.

If the facillities are nationalised (with compensation, unless the company performed illegal methods which would decrease the amount of money they could claim) then their is no real problem in terms of inequal repratriations.

Yes there is, because the only just compensation is the market price, and since the "seller" is unwilling, there is no market price.

Yet at that moment the Venezuelan state does exist there and as such is quite able to own land and provide regulation for land it owns and the land that lies in its jurisdiction.

Sorry, argument by assertion yet again.

It confers a legitamate claim for the state and society of Venezuela. The government is merely the part of the state.

How so? By what moral right? Make the argument, rather than simply asserting that you are right.

Why did the state not have the right to that land before that?

The question is based on a false premise (that the state legitimately owns everything).

If you owned a large tract of land amd I wandered onto your land and built a house on that would I have the same right to do that?

False premise, we are talking about unowned land, because you have not established a legal and moral case for legitimate government ownership. You have simply asserted that it is so. This is not good enough.

They own the land.

Do they rightfully own the land?

How would an oil company have right to the oil in that land using your logic?

Have you not heard of homesteading? Do some reading.

According to your economic model, which is not universal.

No, contract is pretty much universal, besides, you haven't made any case that refutes mine. My case is simply his contract.

What I am trying to say, rather badly, is that we define a worker's daily wages as reasonable return, yet stockholders get to keep making money in perpetuity even though they only put their money down once.

Again, you are not talking about something problematic, merely your inability to distinguish between a stockholder (who owns part of the company), and a bondholder (who lends the company money).

We are pointing out the fact that the oil companies never owned the land that is the oil fields. Nothing more. We are not arguing about whether it is moral or right for the Venezuelan state to do so, got it?

If the Venezuelan government never had a right to own the fields, then the rightful owners must be the oil companies.

I think that's pretty generous considering how important the oil industry to Venezuela. Many other countries would nationalise the industry outright or only allow Venezuelan companies to participate, like the US does with its defense industry.

I don't care whether or not you think it is generous, it isn't just.

Thanks for the definition. The Venezuelan state, and the citizens who worked there, also worked in the finding, extracting, refining, transporting and marketing. But according to you, their contribution is not worthy of recompense like the stockholders are. Why is that?

Their contribution (which is defined by their contract) is compensated by pay etc (again defined by their contract).

Maybe multinationals seeking to invest in Venezuela should have bondholders instead of stockholders. Would that work? I hoestly have no idea, but it seems fairer to everybody than the current situation.

No it does not. If people want to buy a chunk of a company, and they are stopped not because there are no willing sellers, but because the state has some arbitrary preference for bondholding, it is unfair.

What I am trying to say, rather badly, is that we define a worker's daily wages as reasonable return, yet stockholders get to keep making money in perpetuity even though they only put their money down once.

A bondholder puts down his money once. It happens like this: He buys the bond. which is fixed for a certain rate, and term. At the end of the term, he gets back the principal plus interest (rate). For an oil company, that would not carry a high risk.

A stockholder buys a chunk of the company. He is not putting his money down once, he is keeping his money tied up, and he has no assurances of getting a return. The value of his shares is not determined by what he spent on them, but as a fraction of the company's market capitalisation (or, the current shareprice multiplied by the number of shares.

A worker's return from the company is far more simple. He agrees to do certain work, for a certain wage. Certain work is done, certain wage is paid, transaction complete. Now, you have not shown that the worker has any claim beyond that, nor can he even make such a case, because he signed a contract of certain work for certain wage. He has by that claimed only "certain wage".

That may well be. But I could say the same thing about free market policies. And you are also forgetting that Venezuela has no gasoline shortage despite the price controls. So it is possible for Venezuela to intelligently manage price controls without creating shortages.
But the only reason they can do so is because they have oil right at home, and it is being extracted by big oil companies.

If for whatever reason the production slows even a little (or as is currently the case, lower oil prices mean the government exports shrink and put a strain on the budget), the government will no longer be able to afford them. That's what's going on in Iran right now, where Ahmadinejad is the only guy still defending the government-set petrol price while parliament wants to raise it.

Price controls for petrol don't normally work in countries that produce no oil (and even if they do, Nigeria is learning that crude oil and petrol aren't the same thing). One just needs to look at the price controls in the US during the 70s and early 80s for that.

They can work in oil-producing countries but only at a huge cost to the government and oil-producing industry. If Chavez pisses off that industry too much, not only will he lose out on huge amounts of money, but he won't be able to keep petrol prices low either. He's shooting himself in the foot, really.

The fact of the matter is, SA is not an inherently poor or resource-poor place, the fact is it is very rich in resources and opportunity, the fact is big corporate entities at the behest of anti-communist conservative lobby in the US constantly try to exploit the natural resources of these countries, especially the gas reserves of Bolivia and the oil reserves of Venezuela, the people of these countries have subsequently rejected this US capitalist imperialism and voted in people who will protect their national resources from greedy transnationalists. The people of Venezuela voted for Chavez because of his policies of these kind of issues, how can you blame him for acting in accordance with their wishes. The fact remains, these oil deposits and any other resources in Venezuela belong to the people of Venezuela, not to any greedy private firm who want to concentrate extreme wealth in the hands of a few US citizens as opposed to proportionate subsidies and welfare to the people of Venezuela. I support all confiscations, expropriations and nationalisations.

I support all confiscations, expropriations and nationalisations.


Try this situation

Your a company mining stuff, you've mined out all the stuff you can in your own country.
The country next door has ore, but no technology/infrastruture to get it out.

SO you offer your services, for every $1 of ore recovered you get 40 cents, the country gets 60 cents
On the basis of this you spend $5 billion building mines/refineries with the expectation you've eventually get $6 billion back.

A couple of years down the road, the host country says 'get lost we nationalising the plants get outa here evil capalist'
When looking at the figures you managed to earn $3 billion, thus having a $2 billion debt which crashes the company and heaps of people are out of work while the estwhile host country has a shiny spanking new mining/refining industry it did'nt have to pay for and was built by someone else

How you you feel?

No, contract is pretty much universal, besides, you haven't made any case that refutes mine. My case is simply his contract.

Again, you are not talking about something problematic, merely your inability to distinguish between a stockholder (who owns part of the company), and a bondholder (who lends the company money).

If the Venezuelan government never had a right to own the fields, then the rightful owners must be the oil companies.

I don't care whether or not you think it is generous, it isn't just.

Their contribution (which is defined by their contract) is compensated by pay etc (again defined by their contract).

No it does not. If people want to buy a chunk of a company, and they are stopped not because there are no willing sellers, but because the state has some arbitrary preference for bondholding, it is unfair.

You are assuming that clear and legal contracts were offered to the Venezuelan workers by these companies in a fair and honest manner and were accepted in the same spirit. One only has to look at the history of multinational corporations in Latin America to see that this is quite a large assumption to make. In many cases, multinationals had a relationship to local workers that resembled a feudal fiefdom. The contract you espouse may never have existed. Free market theory assumes that both parties are entering the contract with informed consent. This has not always been the case throughout Latin American hostory.

Thanks for explaining the difference between bondholders and stockholders. What I was trying to say was that the current capitalist market model seems to reward the stockholder over and over again despite the fact that the stockholder only does one thing once: put up some cash. Meanwhile, the worker who puts in work day after day, lives in the area where the work is done, helps the local economy survive, builds communities, actually gets his or her hands dirty, etcetera, only gets his or her pay, if he or she is lucky. You do not see this as problematic. I do. But that is a matter of opinion, not fact. I do not see either of us changing our opinions in this matter.

Oh, and if the Venezuelan government doesn't own the fields, it does not mean that the oil companies must own them. It is possible that some thrid party owns them and leases them to the oil companies...or some other weird possibility. And are we talking about owning the land, owning the oil, owning the infrastructure, because I'm a little unclear.

I support all confiscations, expropriations and nationalisations.

Don't mince your words. Say what you feel. You support theft.

You are assuming that clear and legal contracts were offered to the Venezuelan workers by these companies in a fair and honest manner and were accepted in the same spirit.

No, I am stating that the workers contracted to do certain work, for a certain wage.

One only has to look at the history of multinational corporations in Latin America to see that this is quite a large assumption to make.

Your subjective evaluation of these companies is irrelevant.

Answer this: can your argument work with a company that acts in a manner that you would consider to be fair?

You are implying that it cannot, your argument is dependent on "evil" companies.

If your argument cannot work with the nicest, most innocent company, then your argument is fallacious.

Thanks for explaining the difference between bondholders and stockholders. What I was trying to say was that the current capitalist market model seems to reward the stockholder over and over again despite the fact that the stockholder only does one thing once: put up some cash.

Don't thank me for an explaination, then disregard it completely. One's thanks should not be that hollow.

I will explain it simply, the bondholder puts up his cash once, and is almost certain to get the return required by the bond.

The stockholder does not put up his money once. He buys a part of the company, so his money is tied up in the company, and to its fortunes while he continues to own the stock. It is an ongoing investment.

He owns a piece of the company, so he is entitled to a proportional piece of its profits.

Meanwhile, the worker who puts in work day after day, lives in the area where the work is done, helps the local economy survive, builds communities, actually gets his or her hands dirty, etcetera, only gets his or her pay, if he or she is lucky. You do not see this as problematic. I do. But that is a matter of opinion, not fact. I do not see either of us changing our opinions in this matter.

You've given me no reason to change my opinion. You have offered no argument that the worker is entitled to more than the pay for which he contracted. You have simply asserted that this must be so, and your only evidence is that the worker turns up, and does what his salary pays him to do.

The employment is simply a sale (from the worker's point of view), and a purchase (from the oil company's point of view). The worker sells his services to the oil company at an agreed price. The oil company pays the price, and the transaction is completed.

How is there anything beyond this?

Sentimental rubbish about local economies, and communities isn't an argument, and your neglect of the role of capital is simply unbelievable.

Answer me this: can the raw labour of these workers (by itself, with no capital involved) build anything like the modern oil industry. Just the raw physical energy, nothing else.

Oh, and if the Venezuelan government doesn't own the fields, it does not mean that the oil companies must own them

There is no evidence of anyone else having a legitimate claim over the oil fields.

is possible that some thrid party owns them and leases them to the oil companies...or some other weird possibility. And are we talking about owning the land, owning the oil, owning the infrastructure, because I'm a little unclear.

That is a distinction without a difference. The most important thing is that the land is rightfully private property, whether owned by the oil companies, or by their landlords, and the government has no right to steal the property simply to improve the Treasury's bottom line.

Jurisdiction is not the same as ownership Aelosia. The lands of the nation I am in is under the jurisdiction of the American State. That does not mean that the state owns the land. The only federally owned lands are those of the US Military Bases as well National Parks.

According toamerican law, Lancaster. Those oil fields were property of the goverment of Venezuela, not of the oil companies.



WRONG! The state did not own the fields. They were owned by private companies. BIG DIFFERENCE! That is like President Bush stating that they own all industries because America Exists. That is incorrect.

Alright, after a bit of research, I think we must clarify something. Since the discovery of oil in these places, that land is property of the Venezuelan State, ok? Years ago, a goverment rented the fields to oil companies in exchange for an allowance. The oil fields, from the beginning property of the State, weren't sold to the companies, thus the company never owned those fields, they just used them for exploration, extraction and production. That land wasn't property of the companies, it was rented.

That may be incorrect in the US, but not here in Venezuela. Not all the globe has the same laws and principles than the US, sorry.

According toamerican law, Lancaster.

Look up "jurisdiction" in the dictionary. It does not mean the same of ownership, they are not even synonymous.

Alright, after a bit of research, I think we must clarify something.

You cannot simply claim to have done research, and post no evidence of having done it.

Look up "jurisdiction" in the dictionary. It does not mean the same of ownership, they are not even synonymous.

Alright, last one. I have to look for autonomía y propiedad, not "jurisidiction and ownership", this is Venezuela, we have different terms, different language, different principles, different definitions, and different laws. Big news.

You cannot simply claim to have done research, and post no evidence of having done it.

www.abn.com

www.eud.com

www.globovision.com

www.unionradio.com

www.pdvsa.com

http://www.mem.gob.ve/

www.el-nacional.com

www.constitucion.ve

That is the lesser part, actually. For the rest, I am not scanning documents and newspapers to place them as images here and recording my phone conversations to you, to make you happy and convinced that I did an investigation. All you have done here is to place a lot of straw men in line, and then call for lot of proofs and arguments. I'm leaving this now.

Alright, last one. I have to look for autonomía y propiedad, not "jurisidiction and ownership", this is Venezuela, we have different terms, different language, different principles, different definitions, and different laws. Big news.

Jurisdiction:

1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies.
2. power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area.
3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police.
4. the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.

Ownership:

1. the state or fact of being an owner.
2. legal right of possession; proprietorship.

Totally different words describing totally different concepts.

Now, you said that "jurisdiction", and "ownership" were the same, I have shown that they are not.

That is the lesser part, actually. For the rest, I am not scanning documents and newspapers to place them as images here and recording my phone conversations to you, to make you happy and convinced that I did an investigation. All you have done here is to place a lot of straw men in line, and then call for lot of proofs and arguments. I'm leaving this now

Actually, you have not made your argument. You have asserted, but not argued. The Venezuelan government has no moral right to ownership of the oil fields, any claim they make is illigitimate.

The matter of moral legitimacy is not a strawman, it is the centre of the argument, as you have put it, because your argument rests on the idea that the Venezuelan government have a legitimate claim to ownership of everything in Venezuela.

According toamerican law, Lancaster. Those oil fields were property of the goverment of Venezuela, not of the oil companies.

And the Suez Canal was runned by the British and then was nationalized by the Egyptian government.

Alright, after a bit of research, I think we must clarify something. Since the discovery of oil in these places, that land is property of the Venezuelan State, ok? Years ago, a goverment rented the fields to oil companies in exchange for an allowance. The oil fields, from the beginning property of the State, weren't sold to the companies, thus the company never owned those fields, they just used them for exploration, extraction and production. That land wasn't property of the companies, it was rented.

And now he is losing income on the rent he was getting. Not smart business sense.

That may be incorrect in the US, but not here in Venezuela. Not all the globe has the same laws and principles than the US, sorry.

Really? WOW!!!

To those of you on here who seem to think Venezuela has no moral or even legal right to the oilfields in Venezuala, answer me this:

1. Does Britain have the moral or legal right to oil / gas fields in the North Sea?

2. Does the USA have the moral or legal right to oil fields in Texas and Alaska?

3. Does Saudi Arabia have the moral or legal right to the oil fields (too numerous to list) within it's borders?

4. Does Iraq have the moral or legal right to the oil fields near Basra?

5. Does Iran have the moral or legal right to oil fields within it's territory?

6. Does Mexico have the moral or legal right to the oil fields off it's coastline?

There are of course many other examples I could bore you with. But my suspicion is that the answer will be "yes" number 2, a probable "yes" to 1 and 3 (because both Britain and Saudi Arabia are the bestest friends to the USA) and probably "no" to 4, 5 and 6, because then that justifies the USA seizing control of the oilfields, if and when they decide to do so.

FACT: Before Chavez was elected, the Venezualan government took 13% of oil revenues for itself. I'm not going to argue the details of the latest expropriations, but what is also a fact is that Chavez initially increased the government take to 26%, exactly double. It is true that international oil companies (BP, Shell and Exxon were the biggest players in Venezuela) have invested a lot in extraction infrastructure. But it is just as true that the Venezuelan government have the right (just like the government of any other sovereign nation) to expropriate (seize control) said infrastructure. Free marketeers may scream about this, but tough shit - there's not a lot you can do about it.


I doubt very much that the USA would invade Venezuela. It would be easier to assume control over the Venezuelan resources by supporting a coup and installing a puppet dictator. That way the country could be 'liberated' without having to justify an invasion to the UN or the US populace.

Actually, this has already been tried back in 2002 - the US State Department sponsored a laughably predictable coup against the Chavez government. It lasted less than 48 hours before Chavez was back in office - he had quite accurately predicted the coup. How? Because the middle eastern nations under the direction of Saudi Arabia had been threatening another oil embargo, therefore making US access to Venezualan oil very important. Chavez stationed a bunch of troops in the basement of Miraflores just before he "resigned" - those troops later ousted Carmona from within.

Those that criticise Chavez for being a "dictator" conveniently ignore the fact that he was democratically elected, winning 58% of the vote. Of course, without a hint of irony, Bush was quick to point out that "legitimacy is not conferred by election by a majority of voters". No, hilarious as this may be, I am not making this up.

Those that criticise Chavez for being a "socialist" conveniently forget the fact that he has offered (and actually given) financial aid to other South American nations, most notably Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina. Why? Because he realises that for his own economy to succeed, the economies most likely to trade directly with his must also succeed. He even offered logistical and medical aid (but not financial aid) to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina struck (hundreds of tons of food and fuel, plus two mobile hospitals), but was turned away by the US coastguard.

Those that criticise Chavez's attitude towards oil companies conveniently forget that Venezuala under his presidency is now a very well behaved member of OPEC. Chavez committed Venezuala to stick to it's OPEC quota, thus helping to stabilise oil prices worldwide. Why did he do this? Because he understands the oil market very well - he is no fool.
Venezualan oil is probably the heaviest grade you're likely to find anywhere on the planet (except for oil shale) - it is mostly in the form of tar sands / tar pits. It's quite laborious and expensive to extract and refine. However, it becomes worth extracting if the oil price rises above $20 per barrel - and who exactly dictates the oil price? Yep, OPEC. By sticking to the quota, Chavez helps OPEC to maintain a high oil price, helping not just his own economy, but every other OPEC member.

But the current USA hatred of Chavez is understandable. After all, Bush has instilled in the US media (if not the public) the idea that opposing his administration or dissenting in any way is equal to being unpatriotic or even equal to being a terrorist. So if Americans aren't allowed to disagree with their own president, how should we let anyone else get away with it, especially the President of another nation, even more so if said nation has "our" oil.

Venezuela defaulted on its bonds yesterday. It was a technical default, but still.

Just a quick point. I see people arguing that the oil fields in Venezuela belong to the Venezuelan people. That's true. Chavez can't steal his own oil. The infrastructure that gets that oil out of the ground and refines it was built by big oil companies though. They built it in return for the right to extract and sell the oil and take a share of the profits. If Chavez decides to kick them out he's stealing the facilities that they've built and reneging on a previous deal struck with those companies.

Personally I don't really care what Venezuela does though.

But it is just as true that the Venezuelan government have the right (just like the government of any other sovereign nation) to expropriate (seize control) said infrastructure. Free marketeers may scream about this, but tough shit - there's not a lot you can do about it.

The problem, is that although the laws of the country in question, Venezuela, allow this, they dispute it cannot be done. I am tired of arguing that point over and over again. The law, in this particular case the constitution, that is the supreme authority of one country, determines that the State indeed can seize control of assets linked to something of national interest, (like oil). Yet, I must say that the land itself where the oil fields were located, was property of the State of Venezuela before the oil companies came, and that the land was given to them in a lease for a certain amount of time, not sold as some people here seem to be supposing.

Actually, this has already been tried back in 2002 - the US State Department sponsored a laughably predictable coup against the Chavez government. It lasted less than 48 hours before Chavez was back in office - he had quite accurately predicted the coup. How? Because the middle eastern nations under the direction of Saudi Arabia had been threatening another oil embargo, therefore making US access to Venezualan oil very important. Chavez stationed a bunch of troops in the basement of Miraflores just before he "resigned" - those troops later ousted Carmona from within.

That information you are providing here is not entirely accurate. There is no proof of the involvement of the US goverment in the events of April 2002, (even although you can suppose it, or defend it, but you cannot take it for granted, and please do not link me to the Eva Gollinger site). I'm pretty sure he didn't predicted it, he was quite surprised. And there were no troops "stationed" on the basement, you are making that up. The troops that reinstated him in power were in Maracay when everything started, under General Baduel's leadership. How do I know that? I was that day there.

Those that criticise Chavez for being a "dictator" conveniently ignore the fact that he was democratically elected, winning 58% of the vote. Of course, without a hint of irony, Bush was quick to point out that "legitimacy is not conferred by election by a majority of voters". No, hilarious as this may be, I am not making this up.

Indeed, Chávez is not a dictator, he was rightfully and democratically elected, and several times, I should add. He may be a demagogue, but that's an entirely different thing.

Those that criticise Chavez for being a "socialist" conveniently forget the fact that he has offered (and actually given) financial aid to other South American nations, most notably Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina. Why? Because he realises that for his own economy to succeed, the economies most likely to trade directly with his must also succeed. He even offered logistical and medical aid (but not financial aid) to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina struck (hundreds of tons of food and fuel, plus two mobile hospitals), but was turned away by the US coastguard.

Are you sure it was turned away by the US Coast Guard?, do you have a link of that? I didn't know that, seems interesting.


But the current USA hatred of Chavez is understandable. After all, Bush has instilled in the US media (if not the public) the idea that opposing his administration or dissenting in any way is equal to being unpatriotic or even equal to being a terrorist. So if Americans aren't allowed to disagree with their own president, how should we let anyone else get away with it, especially the President of another nation, even more so if said nation has "our" oil.

Chávez has instilled in the Venezuelan public and people, quite directly, without even courtesy, the idea that opposing his administration or dissenting in any way is equal to being unpatriotic or even equal to being a terrorist. "Patria y socialismo, o muerte" resumes that quite well. He labels anyone who opposes his ways as a traitor to the country and the fatherland, and actually oppresses them through goverment measures, placing them apart. Every media that opposes him faces restraint in some form of another.

In that, he's a twin to Bush, or even worst.

Just a quick point. I see people arguing that the oil fields in Venezuela belong to the Venezuelan people. That's true. Chavez can't steal his own oil. The infrastructure that gets that oil out of the ground and refines it was built by big oil companies though. They built it in return for the right to extract and sell the oil and take a share of the profits. If Chavez decides to kick them out he's stealing the facilities that they've built and reneging on a previous deal struck with those companies.

Personally I don't really care what Venezuela does though.

The problem is that some people here argue that the land and the oil fields doesn't belong to the venezuelan people on principle. In principle, too, the facilities, (but not the fields, see?) belong to the companies that built them, and on principle, the goverment should pay for those faciilities if they want the companies out of the fields. If he doesn't pay for the facilities, yes, he is stealing them.

Sorry, I don't see where he's less evil.

Are the oil companies buying millions of dollars worth of the latest Russian fighter jets?What significance does the origin of their defence purchases have? US weapons are "good guys"..
Russian and Chinese weapons are "evil" [/sarcasm..of course]

US weapons are "good guys"..
Russian and Chinese weapons are "evil" [/sarcasm..of course]

There are several airforce millitary spenders who might agree with you, after Indonesia deceided to upgrade it's airfleet with Su-30's.

US weapons are "good guys"..
Russian and Chinese weapons are "evil" [/sarcasm..of course]

That's a strawman and you know it.

That information you are providing here is not entirely accurate. There is no proof of the involvement of the US goverment in the events of April 2002, (even although you can suppose it, or defend it, but you cannot take it for granted, and please do not link me to the Eva Gollinger site). I'm pretty sure he didn't predicted it, he was quite surprised. And there were no troops "stationed" on the basement, you are making that up. The troops that reinstated him in power were in Maracay when everything started, under General Baduel's leadership. How do I know that? I was that day there.



No, I am not making this up, there WERE troops stationied in the basement.
And yes, Chavez did get prior warning of the impending coup:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/1985670.stm

Also, I never said the US government was directly involved. I merely said that the US state department sponsored the coup d-etat.



Are you sure it was turned away by the US Coast Guard?, do you have a link of that? I didn't know that, seems interesting.



Ok, you requested a link demonstrating how Chavez's food / fuel / medical aid was refused entry to New Orleans. Here is is:

http://www.gregpalast.com/hugo-chavez-an-exclusive-interview-with-greg-palast

It's a pity the website doesn't give as much detail as he does in the Armed Madhouse book. That's where I read that it was the US coastguard that turned away Chavez's aid. But an actual link confirming this has eluded me thus far.

Ok, and before you feel the need to point it out, yes, I got the figure wrong. The price above which Venezuelan oil becomes work extracting is $30 per barrel, not $20. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

You might find these articles interesting as well:

http://www.gregpalast.com/dick-cheney-hugo-chavez-and-bill-clintons-band/

http://www.gregpalast.com/cruisin-for-a-bruisin-with-hugorngreg-palast-in-caracas/

Before you dismiss Greg Palast as just another journalist with an agenda, bear in mind that he writes for the Guardian newspaper in the UK, and also produces reports for the BBC's Newsnight program. He does indeed have an agenda - he posts his motives on his website for the world to see. He is also one of the world's most reliable sources of proper investigative reports.

There are several airforce millitary spenders who might agree with you..they think Russian/Chinese weapons are evil.. and US weapons are ... err..

what is the opposite of evil?

To those of you on here who seem to think Venezuela has no moral or even legal right to the oilfields in Venezuala, answer me this:

No, six times.

But it is just as true that the Venezuelan government have the right (just like the government of any other sovereign nation) to expropriate (seize control) said infrastructure.

That simply is not the case. What the government is doing here is nothing but theft.

To say that it does is to say that each Venezuelan has the right to steal, and I'm pretty sure that if an accused thief used that defence, he'd get laughter, and a few years in the slammer to get the joke.

The "soverign state" argument here really boils down to this: No one has any rights, anything that a government does within the country's own borders is OK, and cannot be disputed in moral grounds because the state is soverign, and can do whatever the heck it likes.

Just a quick point. I see people arguing that the oil fields in Venezuela belong to the Venezuelan people. That's true.

No, it isn't. The Venezuelan government do not have a rightful claim to that land, any more than they have a rightful claim to the land of the poorest farmer. The fact is that there is nothing special about oil fields, and an argument that works against land ownership for rich evil oil companies works against all private land ownership.

they think Russian/Chinese weapons are evil.. and US weapons are ... err..

what is the opposite of evil?

Are you that thick? Get off your strawman argument.

Several nations that the US strongly supports make full use of Russian and Chinese made weapons, Ethiopia and Iraq, for example. Or perhaps, the standing talk about purchasing Kilo Class submarines and then reselling them to Taiwan. There's no moral difference between US and Russian weapons (although there is a qualitative difference quite a lot of the time).

No, the reason why the the comment about russian fighter jets is being made is to compare the Oil companies to the Chavez government: One is buying guns, the other isn't.

I hate people in this thread saying it's 'theft', since when does the natural resources of this country belong to these private firms? Even the infrastructure does not belong to them, it belongs to the state and the people, it was just built by these firms who were allowed an amount of the profit made, there is no such ownership by these firms. And furthermore, under the doctrine of socialism which Chavez is implementing, property is a defunct term, if the firms don't like the ideology they should leave. People can whine all they like about private ownership, but the government in power at the moment is against such capitalist policies, just as many other governments around the world are for them, simply as that, the people wouldn't have elected a socialist President if they didn't agree, or are you going to go onto the line of 'the people are stupid and don knows what best for them' elitist mandate shit.

I hate people in this thread saying it's 'theft', since when does the natural resources of this country belong to these private firms? Even the infrastructure does not belong to them, it belongs to the state and the people, it was just built by these firms who were allowed an amount of the profit made, there is no such ownership by these firms. And furthermore, under the doctrine of socialism which Chavez is implementing, property is a defunct term, if the firms don't like the ideology they should leave. People can whine all they like about private ownership, but the government in power at the moment is against such capitalist policies, just as many other governments around the world are for them, simply as that, the people wouldn't have elected a socialist President if they didn't agree, or are you going to go onto the line of 'the people are stupid and don knows what best for them' elitist mandate shit.

It's a fallacy to claim that something is right, merely because it is the standing policy of a popular government. Heck, it was the standing policy of the popular government of Alabama to enforce segregation, but that doesn't make it right.

The installed infrastucture clearly belongs to the oil firms that operate it. They imported it from abroad, and installed it on their own prerogative. The firms should be permitted to carry off the installed derricks , pumps and other infrastructure they paid for in the first place.

The installed infrastucture clearly belongs to the oil (Corps)...did belong.

and it was legally expropriated by the Government.

If you think expropriations are illegal.. you need to take a long.. hard look at your own Government.

did belong.

and it was legally expropriated by the Government.

If you think expropriations are illegal.. you need to take a long.. hard look at your own Government.

There's a difference between justice and legality, and I feel fully comfortable in condemning injustice whereever it may occur. This thread is about Venezuela, and I criticize the injustice of the actions of the Venezuelan government.

The installed infrastucture clearly belongs to the oil firms that operate it.

that's not clear at all. if it clearly belongs to anybody, then it either belongs to the people who actually built and worked it, or to the community as a whole.

that's not clear at all. if it clearly belongs to anybody, then it either belongs to the people who actually built and worked it, or to the community as a whole.

Only in a fantasy land that no one but whackos and leftovers of a different era believe in.

The people who built the infrastructure were justly compensated for their work in the form of voluntarily agreed to pay, whilst the actual materiel used to produce the infrastructure had the labor of the investors mixed into them in the form of monetary purchase.

There's a difference between justice and legality, and I feel fully comfortable in condemning injustice whereever it may occur.Justice? ... as in Department of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/)?

Justice? ... as in Department of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/)?

It has nothing to do with Albie Gonzo...by the way...have you picked a date on which you expect Albie to go?

by the way...have you picked a date on which you expect Albie to go?hmm.. I dont know..

I would say he lasts less than 1 month.

what do you think?

No, six times.



That simply is not the case. What the government is doing here is nothing but theft.

To say that it does is to say that each Venezuelan has the right to steal, and I'm pretty sure that if an accused thief used that defence, he'd get laughter, and a few years in the slammer to get the joke.

The "soverign state" argument here really boils down to this: No one has any rights, anything that a government does within the country's own borders is OK, and cannot be disputed in moral grounds because the state is soverign, and can do whatever the heck it likes.



No, it isn't. The Venezuelan government do not have a rightful claim to that land, any more than they have a rightful claim to the land of the poorest farmer. The fact is that there is nothing special about oil fields, and an argument that works against land ownership for rich evil oil companies works against all private land ownership.


Ok, since you've answered no to all six of those, you clearly believe that the countries I mentioned have no legal or moral right to oil reserves within their territory. This includes the USA, Britain, Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia.

Therefore by your reasoning, any of these countries, since they don't have any right to oil reserves within their territory, should welcome foreign contractors in to extract the oil, right? The government of the country in question could of course charge a "royalty" for oil extracted, or take a share of the profits, or simply rent them the land.

Of course this does happen in many places already - I'm not arguing that it should not.

But whether you like it or not, Sovereign nations do intrinsically own and hence have the legal (if not the moral) right to any resources within their territory. They even reserve the right to seize control of any property within their territory. This is what expropriation is.

However, people or companies are in most cases paid for expropriated property. To take the simplest example, the local government can compulsorily purchase my house if it decides it needs to build a new road and my house is in the way. They are obliged by law to give me a fair market price for the property, but I am obliged by law to sell it and move. I don't like this fact at all - but being a citizen, it's something I have to live with.

Private industries which are expropriated by a government are often paid compensation when this happens. However, the government can refuse compensation (or give considerably less than market value) if the company in question has been abusing it's position - such as breaking national laws or regulations, failing to pay taxes etc. The same way I can have my house reposessed if I fail to pay my mortgage.

You can if you like consider expropriation without compensation to be theft. But you can't define it as theft unless you also believe in property rights. And like it or not, the rights the government has over resources or property within it's territory trump the individual property rights of individuals or companies. I don't like it either, but as I said before, tough shit.

Ok, since you've answered no to all six of those, you clearly believe that the countries I mentioned have no legal or moral right to oil reserves within their territory. This includes the USA, Britain, Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia.

Congratulations. The penny/euro cent/cent/kopek dropped.

Therefore by your reasoning, any of these countries, since they don't have any right to oil reserves within their territory, should welcome foreign contractors in to extract the oil, right?

Have you never heard of homesteading?

If the land is already owned privately, then the oil company should go to the owners. If it is unowned, there there is no problem with them setting up right there.

The government of the country in question could of course charge a "royalty" for oil extracted, or take a share of the profits, or simply rent them the land.

No, they should not.

Sovereign nations do intrinsically own and hence have the legal (if not the moral) right to any resources within their territory.

No they do not. Soverignty comes from the citizens, which is to say that a government draws its legitimate power from the people.

Now, if you do not have the right to do something, you have no right to ask someone else to do it, i.e. you have no right to kill people, so you can't hire assassins to do the work for you. Since you have no right to steal other people's property, you have no right to ask others to do it, regardless of whether the people you're asking are professional thieves, or government officials (but I repeat myself)

However, people or companies are in most cases paid for expropriated property.

Irrelevant.

the rights the government has

Governments do not have rights. They have powers, which the people delegate to the government. Therefore, if the people have no right to do something, then the government has no right to do it.

that's not clear at all. if it clearly belongs to anybody, then it either belongs to the people who actually built and worked it.

So, you are saying that the raw labour, without direction from management, and without any capital, made all that oil infrastructre possible?

to the community as a whole

Bollocks.

Only in a fantasy land that no one but whackos and leftovers of a different era believe in.

Like a world without eminent domain?

The people who built the infrastructure were justly compensated for their work in the form of voluntarily agreed to pay, whilst the actual materiel used to produce the infrastructure had the labor of the investors mixed into them in the form of monetary purchase.

none of which undermines their clear claim to it, in so far as there are such clear claims.

none of which undermines their clear claim to it, in so far as there are such clear claims.

What claim?

You have not established that such a claim even exists.

Like a world without eminent domain?

Is that supposed to be a rebuttal?

What claim?

You have not established that such a claim even exists.

use and possession are the only sort of 'ownership' you get automatically. all other systems are purely the product of socially created rules which can be and are modified from time to time.

Is that supposed to be a rebuttal?

Yes. If Andaluciae wants to appeal to social convention and consensus, then he cannot selectively choose the precepts to draw from it.

use and possession are the only sort of 'ownership' you get automatically. all other systems are purely the product of socially created rules which can be and are modified from time to time.

Then you haven't proven you case, you have proven mine. The only way you could prove this argument is to show that it was the undirected labour of the workers, without the benefit of capital, that created all the infrastructure.

use and possession are the only sort of 'ownership' you get automatically. all other systems are purely the product of socially created rules which can be and are modified from time to time.

And the oil companies have been using the infrastructure. Indirectly, albeit, but they have been using it.

on Cuba: Cuba been run into the ground by 60+ years of boycott and counter-propaganda (funded by the "western powers")

on Chavez: if the guy was everything as bad as people make him out to be, and worse, then still: TWO thumbs up for that man, too many nations are lackeys to the remaining superpower

on Us of A:Beautiful country, where the biggest coyuotes, rats, asses and cows are on two legs and the reasonable ones on four. and I would like to remind you that the last succesful american military operation was in KOREA!

since then the US has:

curtailed freedom home and abroad,
driven the central and south- americas into servitude and set up pro-american dictators in most of these states,
trained death-squads in the americas and elsewhere, most notably Al-Qaida and the Mujahiddeen, to name but two.
massacred millions in Iraq but failed to finish the job during the 90's,
murdered 5000 americans in the WTC tragedy, blaming the Bin Ladens, but allowing the whole family safe transit to Arabia.
wasted afghanistan, what little was left,
ruinede Iraq for no better reason than that the shelf-life of their rockets was expiring, and for some (cheney's halli-burton et al) companies to rack up MEGA-profits, and bill Iraq for the expenses

wow

Hitler AND Stalin are applauding from the grave... their dreams are coming true.. a UNIFIED europe AND a ONE superpower world..

there is more, much much more


enlighten yourselves on www.disinfo.com

DO IT!

YOU are being LIED to!
EVERYTHING you (think you) KNOW is WRONG!

history is written by those who have an interest in doing so, so BE cynical, ASK questions

free press is dying
civil liberties are being retracted..

SOON we will ALL be under the heel of some uncaring dictator (who himself will be set up by 1>the big banks, 2>the megacorps 3>the powermongers and spindoctors of old and new)
:headbang: WAKE UP!




on Economy: profit-oriented thinking is what is tanking our civil rights, environment and even climate...

Bollocks.

If you think the crap you posted is worthy of a more detailed response, that says a lot about you, none of it good.

on Cuba: Cuba been run into the ground by 60+ years of boycott and counter-propaganda (funded by the "western powers")

on Chavez: if the guy was everything as bad as people make him out to be, and worse, then still: TWO thumbs up for that man, too many nations are lackeys to the remaining superpower

on Us of A:Beautiful country, where the biggest coyuotes, rats, asses and cows are on two legs and the reasonable ones on four. and I would like to remind you that the last succesful american military operation was in KOREA!

since then the US has:

curtailed freedom home and abroad,
driven the central and south- americas into servitude and set up pro-american dictators in most of these states,
trained death-squads in the americas and elsewhere, most notably Al-Qaida and the Mujahiddeen, to name but two.
massacred millions in Iraq but failed to finish the job during the 90's,
murdered 5000 americans in the WTC tragedy, blaming the Bin Ladens, but allowing the whole family safe transit to Arabia.
wasted afghanistan, what little was left,
ruinede Iraq for no better reason than that the shelf-life of their rockets was expiring, and for some (cheney's halli-burton et al) companies to rack up MEGA-profits, and bill Iraq for the expenses

wow

Hitler AND Stalin are applauding from the grave... their dreams are coming true.. a UNIFIED europe AND a ONE superpower world..

there is more, much much more


enlighten yourselves on www.disinfo.com

DO IT!

YOU are being LIED to!
EVERYTHING you (think you) KNOW is WRONG!

history is written by those who have an interest in doing so, so BE cynical, ASK questions

free press is dying
civil liberties are being retracted..

SOON we will ALL be under the heel of some uncaring dictator (who himself will be set up by 1>the big banks, 2>the megacorps 3>the powermongers and spindoctors of old and new)
:headbang: WAKE UP!




on Economy: profit-oriented thinking is what is tanking our civil rights, environment and even climate...

Castro was a Soviet stooge for decades, whose country would not run despite the fact that the USSR poured billions of Rubles into Cuba over the Cold War, and never received a return on their investment.
Very few states are "lackeys to the superpower".
Desert Storm, perhaps?
Rare are Latin American dictators these days, most of the governments in the region are democratically elected.
Once you hit the World Trade Center bit, anything remaining disappears.

Bollocks.

If you think the crap you posted is worthy of a more detailed response, that says a lot about you, none of it good.

Bit like the bollocks you've posted regarding property rights.

Fact is that the government owns your land. You might hold deed to it...but ultimately the government owns it. If it wants you off your land there is absolutely fuck all you can do about it.

Unclaimed land in a sovereign territory belongs to the government. It does not belong to no one.

Ocean thinks that Chavez is smart, intelligent, and doing the right thing.

He gets the thumbs-up sign of approval from ol' Dobbsy... Hell, they both do.

Fact is that the government owns your land. You might hold deed to it...but ultimately the government owns it. If it wants you off your land there is absolutely fuck all you can do about it.

You could have been more brief, but I will be: might makes right. Your post comes down to nothing more than that.

Of course I can do fuck all if the government wants me off my land. They have police, and armies. Not much I can do against that.

Make a moral argument, rather than simply saying "if the government wants you off your land, they can force you off it because they are much more powerful than you."

Unclaimed land in a sovereign territory belongs to the government. It does not belong to no one.

That is a contradiction in terms, either something is owned by someone, or something is unclaimed. If the government owns it, it is not unclaimed. If it is unclaimed, then by definition no one owns it.

The government has no legitimate right to land which is unclaimed, any more than it has a legitimate right to steal claimed land.

Rare are Latin American dictators these days

Except in Cuba!

You could have been more brief, but I will be: might makes right. Your post comes down to nothing more than that.

Of course I can do fuck all if the government wants me off my land. They have police, and armies. Not much I can do against that.

Make a moral argument, rather than simply saying "if the government wants you off your land, they can force you off it because they are much more powerful than you."



That is a contradiction in terms, either something is owned by someone, or something is unclaimed. If the government owns it, it is not unclaimed. If it is unclaimed, then by definition no one owns it.

The government has no legitimate right to land which is unclaimed, any more than it has a legitimate right to steal claimed land.



Except in Cuba!

I thought you understood the term unclaimed in this context. My apologies. Unclaimed by citizens. There hows that?

When America was expanding westwards it sold deeds land in territories that no one had hardly seen.

Its not a strictly moral issue. Its a legal issue.

Unclaimed by citizens. There hows that?

A government derives its legitimate power from the citizens. That no individual citizen, or group of citizens has claimed it does not confer any rights upon the government.

When America was expanding westwards it sold deeds land in territories that no one had hardly seen.

I know. It doesn't make it right.

Its not a strictly moral issue. Its a legal issue.

Laws change, depending on who makes them. A legalistic view is nothing more than a device to excuse government abuses.

A government derives its legitimate power from the citizens. That no individual citizen, or group of citizens has claimed it does not confer any rights upon the government.

I know. It doesn't make it right.

Laws change, depending on who makes them. A legalistic view is nothing more than a device to excuse government abuses.

You're still in school right?

You're still in school right?

Danke. People don't usually concede so rapidly.

Danke. People don't usually concede so rapidly.

Concede? LOL

Nah...its just what you posted is something I would expect from a older teenager with little experience of the real world.

*snip*

So as the US is bad, then Chávez, who is opposed to it, must be good, right?

The most simple line of thinking ever, and it is awesome how it spreads.

And Mesoriya, the point held here is a legal one, not a moral one, no matter how many times you place that amount of straw around you, questioning the nature of law as a whole. If you question the nature of law, you also question the right of the oil companies to own the fields. By the way, as stated before, the oil companies has never owned the fields, they never had a deed or anything legal stating that the land is owned by them.

If you stay in this line of thinking, you need to recognize that anyone jumping into a bit of unoccupied land make it theirs. Just let me know so I can reclaim at least half of the Yellowstone Park as mine.

Concede? LOL

Nah...its just what you posted is something I would expect from a older teenager with little experience of the real world.

In other words, you're out of material, so you've decided to turn to ad-hominem. A man would admit as much, then again, he might have read what I posted.

Perhaps you can point out where I have disputed that the government can force rightful owners from their property? I will answer, I have not, in fact, I said they could physically do it in plain English. I will repeat it because you obviously did not read it:

Of course I can do fuck all if the government wants me off my land. They have police, and armies. Not much I can do against that

Is that clear enough for you?

Now, the idea that a government derives its legitimate power from the citizenry is not exactly new. Its been around for a while, and is generally accepted.

What is also generally accepted is the idea that if you don't have the right to do something, you can't ask someone else to do it for you. Simple examples, you don't have the right to commit murder, so you don't have the right to hire an assassin to murder someone. You do not have the right to steal, so you do not have the right to hire a professional thief to do it for you.

That people in this context vote in a government to commit the crime, rather than hiring bonafide criminals, does not make it any different.

Now, you have not actually made your argument, you have done what everyone else has done, argue by assertion, hoping that I will accept it without question if it is stated in a slightly different way. You have not actually explained where the state gets the right, in the moral sense, to do something.

I know where they get the legal right to do it, they make the laws, and they have the men with guns to carry them out. Law is irrelevant, because law is nothing more than the arbitrary preferences of politicians translated into reality. I hardly have the space, or the time to list all the abuses by governments that were perfectly legal.

That people in this context vote in a government to commit the crime, rather than hiring bonafide criminals, does not make it any different.I did not vote for Bush.

-for the record- ;)

And Mesoriya, the point held here is a legal one, not a moral one,

No it isn't.

Let me explain why:

1) Laws change with governments, a law is simply the preferences of the current government translated into action, and enforced by people who use physical force to enforce them.

2) Most abuses committed by governments were perfectly legal, that doesn't make them right.

The unspoken part of your argument is that a government has the right to make any law it likes, no matter what that law is, because your argument has always asserted that there is no place for right and wrong except in the sense that the state defines right and wrong with the law, and can change its preference at any time.

It is actually you who stands against the rule of law.

Moral is not a fixed value, as you seem to think. Morals change according times and people. The fact that a goverment makes a decision based on legality, and legitimacy, gives that decision enough moral ground.

Not everyone has the same moral, as moral is not based on any unmovable principles. And morals beyond any individual, is build over consensus. From political consensus come the ideas of laws and goverment. Although I get the idea that you are taking this to a more philosophical field, I still see your point as void.

Let me ask you something for a change. Why should the oil companies keep the fields, or to own them in the first place? Please consider that they never bought them in the first place.