![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Monday, 15 May 2006
Faisal wrote a post criticizing my response to Evo Morales nationalization of Bolivia's oil industry. Here is how he views it:
My previous post
was about President Evo Morales of Bolivia nationalizing the countries
Energy sources, mostly those owned by foreign corporations. Not everyone shared my view
that his actions would lead to a situation which is more socially
equitable. Sorry, I still think it is. It was mentioned that there were
people who invested money into these projects. Obviously, they expect
(and deserve) a return on their investment. Sandmonkey, whose post I linked to in this paragraph, believes that Morales' decisions were immoral.
And here is his reasoning:
So, it's not alright if people die violent death in bombings, shootings
or stabbing incidents and it's completely alright if they're country is
sucked dry of its resources, because other people payed money to make
profits from these resources, effectively killing hundreds and
thousands over a longer period of time. That makes complete and utter
sense; Bolivia needs the gas and petrol to sell in order to make money
to fund their resource and money starved government (whichever
government it is).What happens is that these companies come
from the US, or other developed countries, and then sign contracts
which award the Bolivians an amount significantly lower than half of
the profits or revenues generated. I can understand how someone can
expect to make money by helping you do something that you wouldn't be
able to do other-wise; the Bolivians wouldn't get any revenue at all if
these companies weren't there… but come on! Less than HALF! Half!
Well, Faisal, let me ignore your mindboggeling comparison of those who die on the hands of terrorists and those who die from poverty for a minute, because You said you don't want a blog-bashing post and I believe you. This will be a discussion of the issue at hand and the mode of thinking. Ok? But first of all, let me correct you on 2 things: The Oil companies in Bolivia aren't US or from other developed countries, and this wasn't done for the "benefit of the people".
First of all, the companies who handle the Bolivian Oil were not US companies, but actually the brazilian state oil company , and as you know, Brazil isn't exactly what someone would call a rich or developed country. And do you know how much the bolivian government stole, sorry, i meant nationalized from them? 1.6 Billion dollars worth of investment . That's money the brazilian people will never see ever again. Is that, in your opinion, right? Second of all, does it strike you as odd at all that the moment they seized the companies, it was venezeulan technicians who went in and ran the sites ? Does it not seems suspicious at all, that the bolivian candidate that was supported by Chavez all the way , suddenly nationalizes the industry and hand it over to the technicians of his "ally"? Hell, even Brazil's Lula smelled a rat, and he called Chavez on it. This is just another part of Chavez's South America plan. This is Nasser's pan arabism all over again, and you remember how well that worked.
And let's ignore all that, and let's focus on the nationalization for a second. Do you know what Morales now wants? He demands that any company that comes in to get only 18% of the profits, and give the other 82% to the Bolivian government. And they are wondering why the hell no one has stepped up to take them on that offer yet. Man, I work in the Oil and Gas sector, and let me tell you, that kind of profit margin is beyond unacceptable. The return on the investment would take forever to actualize itself, and let's face it, any government that sees it well in its right to nationalize your investment whenever they see fit, is a government that you can not trust with your investments. So yeah, sure, they did take over the facilities, but no one who actually knows how to run the business will touch it with a 10 foot pole. Morales, if he really wanted to help his people and raise their income level, has fucked up big time. Bolivia doesn't have much oil to begin with, so the return is not even close to the risk.
I am against socilaism because it doesn't work. It never ever fuckin works. If you doubt that, ask anyone who lived in a socialist state how it was like. Ask anyone who lived in the USSR. Ask anyone who lives now in Cuba. Hell, why even go far: Look around you. The Egyptian economy was in perfect shape in the days of the monarchy when the market liberals were in government. Look at it after Nasser's socialist policies of nationalization and wealth distribution. It screwed our economy for years and years to come after that. Hell, the days of the monarchy, the egyptian pound was equal to more than a gold pound, and the UK owed us money. They owed us. Now? With all the horribly run government companies and years of government employing people they don't need because people "have a right to a job", we are wondering how the hell we are in the mess we are in. How someone, after seeing what Nasser did to Egypt, could in any way support his kind of policies is beyond me.
But ignore me, I am a Neocon apparently . See what the outgoing Peruvian president has to say on this topic :
"I am not going to pass judgment on the decisions of heads of
state who are democratically elected, and I expect democratic
governance," Toledo said.
"However, if you ask me my opinion in terms of the region, I
believe that (nationalizations) would be a serious setback. Because
the empirical evidence we have from the past 70 years shows clearly
that short-term populisms end with a funeral whose costs are paid
for by the poorest," Toledo said.
"If you do not have clear rules for the game, capital is not
going to come. If there is no capital, there is no growth. If there
is no growth, there is no employment. If there is no employment,
there is no income. If there is no income, there is nothing to
invest more in nutrition, health and education, which are the most
powerful weapons for reducing poverty," the Peruvian president said.
Nationalization doesn't help Faisal, and capitalism isn't the problem. It's a difference in approach. Trust me when I tell you that capitalists don't want poor people in the world, because the more people with money there is the more goods they buy and more money they make. It's just how we see things. For example, socialists see that a good way to help poor people is to give them welfare. Capitalists disagree, because welfare doesn't really improve the person's life, it just helps make it more tolerable. Capitalists for example champion micro-banking and micro-financing: Lend the people money to start their own businesses and not need your charity to live. We want the people to live with dignity, and welfare checks from the government is anything but dignified, and the door is always open for its abuse. Look at China: Capitalism helped move 300 million chinese from the poverty they lived under during the days of communism. When has socialism ever done that?
And let's be honest, even you benefit from capitalism and globalization: The shoes you buy, the cloths you wear, the goods you get at the supermarket, all made abroad and brought to you by capitalism. When was the last time you bought anything made by the factories of the egyptian government? When was the last time you went to a government hospital to get treated? Did you even go to a state-run University? Do I need to go on? Private ownership usually means good managment, which is never the case when the government is in control. Don't you think?
So yeah, I would think that Morales' move is stupid and will have some seriously negative consequences on his country. I also believe that Socialism and its pretext of working for the public good has always been and still remains the ultimate excuse for tyrants and dictators to validate their powers and control. Hell, didn't Chavez just declare he wants to stay in power for the next 25 year s? I also believe that people have the best chance to improve their life under a capitalistic system, and not a socilaist one. But who knows, maybe you are right. However, and I am quoting one of my readers here, until I see americans on rafts escaping the US to get to Cuba and not vice-versa, I don't think I will consider changing my opinion.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Well said SM!!
Bolivia and Venezualla will reap the TEMPORARY rewards of record oil profits, but it will never last. Plus no foreign company or bank will ever trust them again. They have essentually closed down their economies to the outside world.
Oil is a curse. Oil makes people lazy, curropt, and socialized. It prevent people from depending on their own ideas and ingenuity and forces them to become a slaves of the state. Saudi Arabia has oil coming out of their wahoos but still have a lower GDP per capita than dry dosilate Israel. Ideas make money, not resources.
But of course socialism does have one huge advantage. It allows us to practice the soft bigotry of low expectations.
And why is being a neocon such a terrible thing? I would suggest neocons are the LEAST racist people on earth. They are the only ones who believe people all over the world are capable of living in freedom if only given the chance. They might be wrong, but they are wrong for all the right reasons.
You are wrong about one thing S.M. There is in fact one SUCCESSFUL communist state in the world… its called France
May 15th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Old formula, new people, same eventual outcome, and Castro has a new Bestest Friend…
’sigh’
And the USSR… Oh, the USSR… Onwards, Comrades, to new and exciting ways of opressing you! They look just like the old ways only you get to be even poorer!
Thank heavens I was born in 1985. Any sooner, and I would’ve been the one telling my son(if I ever actually have one) Why Communism is Bad firsthand instead my parents doing the same to me.
And France? Successful? How can one use these words in the same sentence without the blog crashing?
May 15th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Great statement, Sandmonkey. It boggles the mind to see nations going down that path again.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I don’t understand this guy’s point:
“What happens is that these companies come
from the US, or other developed countries, and then sign contracts
which award the Bolivians an amount significantly lower than half of
the profits or revenues generated.”
If the deal was bad for Bolivia, why did Bolivia sign the deal (apart from the reasoning that Bolivia could later steal the investment)? Did anybody forbid Bolivia from managing Bolivian resources itself? I don’t think so.
Bolivia willingly signed a contract and is now breaking it, stealing the investment in the process.
I don’t have a problem with the politics of it (if Bolivia wants socialism, Bolivia should have socialism), but I do have a problem with Bolivia breaking a contract and stealing from Brazil.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
I’m glad you cleared the Neocon part. I was beginning to worry that I was the only one who didn’t think so:-)
May 15th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
While I always appreciate a good speech extoling the benefits of capitalism over socialism, you overlook one serious flaw in capitalism. It gives people enough disposable income to create and fund groups like PETA which brings misery to everyone who can hear or see them.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Man I am from Venezuela, and your analysis was soo right. The fact is that I doubt the technicians were venezuelans, probably they were cubans or other foreigners because many venezuelan technicians have left the country thanks to Hugo. But, hey, having Huguito as a president forever will help us to save the money we would spend making fair elections and all that stuff. We can even become a monarchy with Chavez as our first King. If you want more information about Venezuelatry these blogs: The Devil’s Excrement, Venezuela Views and News and Oil Wars (google them). The former two are written by people in the oposition whilst the latter by a person who supports the goverment. Enjoy the reading
May 15th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Great post, Sandy.
May 15th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Excellent post. Another example of socialism’s failure is Chavez’s own Venezuela. Oil production has apparently declined but they are doing their best to conceal this fact. Whether it has declined because Venezuela is past its peak of product or whether because of socialist mismanagement, it is bad news for Venezuela in the long term. Venezuela is actually purchasing significant amounts of oil from Russia and reselling it (presumably at a loss) so as not to default on its oil-delivery contracts.
http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2283
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20373&only
May 15th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Love getting the “neocon” label. I get that because I support the war on terror.
Well, I’m against liesse faire capitalism — thinking capitalism needs restrictions or it will serve itself and not the greater good. I think multinational corporations deserve zero tax breaks.
But oh yeah. I’m such the neo-conservative.
May 15th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Gadfly says:
“I think multinational corporations deserve zero tax breaks.”
Think about it like this:
Tax breaks for multinational corps = Greater profit per capita = Greater re-investment per capita = Economic Growth.
I don’t think absolute laissez-faire is a good idea though. The ideas of privately run police and defence scare me.
May 15th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
I’m not a laissez-faire absolutist either. In fact, most of those who claim to be for free markets are all for the government interfering in certain ways.
One free ebook that should be read by every conservative:
http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
May 15th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
A friend and former colleague of mine recently scared me.
When we talked about South America and the subject of Venezuela and Chavez came up and I called Chavez a nutter, he said, and I quote from memory: “But he is a libertarian socialist”.
That really scared me. That a junta boss who once came to power in a putsch and was then elected (and who has made it impossible for anybody else to win since) could possibly be understood as a “libertarian” is fascinating.
I don’t understand the left.
How could a violent man like Chavez possibly be understood as a “libertarian” using any definition of the term? And why does his being a “libertarian” excuse his behaviour?
(And please don’t start a discussion about libertarian socialism vs other libertarianisms; that’s not the point here.)
The point is that we are fighting an enemy who is, by many, understood to be good even though he is against democracy; and our allies are those who save the lives of thousands (Bush in Iraq, number of victims now vs number of victims under Saddam) and do not putsch to come to power and are automatically evil.
How can we possibly win?
We can only win by living happy lives. And that seems to be what North-America, Europe (for the most part), Israel, and Japan are doing.
And that generated the wealth that the socialists want to take.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
hmmm…
I’ll give that one a read.
May 15th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
And don’t forget the Mexicans escaping and coming here too!
May 15th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
The usual crap from the citizen of a third rate country under the
thumb of american imperialism.
And then watch the crowd applauding the rants of a house-nigger.
Absolutely hilarious.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
JordanR,
Your observations about the curse of oil coincide with Thomas Friedman’s Theory of “Petrolism”–how enormous oil income stifles other developments within a country.
A copy of Friedman’s article, “Red, White, and Green” can be read on the “Waving or Drowning” blog.
http://miketodd.typepad.com/waving_or_drowning/2006/01/the_tyranny_of_.html
May 15th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
eee,
Somebody needs to clean your mouth out with soap. Stop with the racial slurs already, would you?
May 15th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
He’s a ridiculous house nigger, licking the boots that kick him and his friends in their asses.
Malcolm X:
“To understand this, you have to go back to what the young brother here referred to as the
house Negro and the field Negro back during slavery. There were two kinds of slaves, the
house Negro and the field Negro.
The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate
good because they ate his food - what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still
they lived near the master; and they loved the master more than the master loved himself.
They would give their life to save the master’s house - quicker than the master would. If the
master said, “We got a good house here,” the house Negro would say, “Yeah, we got a good
house here.” Whenever the master said “we,” he said “we.” That’s how you can tell a house
Negro.”
May 15th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Tommy: I’m new here, but I think that “eee” guy is a recurring troll idiot that everybody seems to ignore.
“Tax breaks for multinational corps = Greater profit per capita = Greater re-investment per capita = Economic Growth.”
That’s the old Regan “trickle down” economics. Multinationals have no loyalty to any nation, even the one that spawned them. That “reinvestment” goes where they can get the most for their money, and that’s often NOT my country. So, I’m not a big fan. (I’m not trying to start a fight or anything. Just tossing in an opinion)
May 15th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Let me just mention a few things before you go on in your very insightful and imminently productive debate.
The conflict in Bolivia is not as much about the socialism or liberalism as it is about the ‘indians’ recovering their rights and dignity. Unless you do understand that what they care about is not welfare, development or growth but simply dignity and justice you’ll totally miss the point. Maybe you need to start understanding that some people care much more about the Gross Domestic Hapiness than about the GDP and that you’re in no position to judge their choices.
That said, where did you get that the brazilian company was the sole company exploiting bolivian gas & oil resources? And where the hell did you find out about brazilian economy, Vanity Fair? A large majority of the brazilians are poor , however the rest are amongst the richest on earth, and Brazil could be a developed country in as little as 10 years if it really wanted to.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
> Greater profit per capita
What is “capita”? Who is “capita”?
Tell us about Mr. or Mrs. “capita”, where do they live ?
And - me a troll? Because of what?
I call a spade a spade. I point to the fact, that the owner of this
blog is a boot-licker of the empire. Foolish enough to continue
with it, even after his “friends” were imprisoned by the ser-
vant of the empire.
He’s a ridiculous pseudo-democrat which cries for his middle
class friends in prison, while being silent like a mass grave, while
hundreds or thousands of egyptians rot in their prisons, because
they are suspected to belong to the MB.
This guy is a not monkey but a clown. A living cartoon, representing
the middle class bourgeoisie in the backyard of the empire.
If he or his friend would come to power, they would transform into
new pharaos within a couple of days.
They don’t want freedom or democracy - they are only dissatisfied not
to belong to innter circle of the ruling mafia, Give them some baksheesh
and they will forget their rants on democracy within minutes.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Unless you do understand that what they care about is not welfare, development or growth but simply dignity and justice you’ll totally miss the point.
Thanks, Bolivian. You just made it clear why your country is poor. Instead of focusing on development and growth, you are focused on ‘dignity’. You can always tell a flaky leftist by this sort of namby-pampy, feel-good rhetoric. Maybe Morales will bring in Dr. Phil from the United States to help raise the collective self-esteem of Bolivians. Maybe Morales can lead the country in huge ‘group therapy’ sessions. Good luck with that.
and Brazil could be a developed country in as little as 10 years if it really wanted to.
Sure, if the wealthier white Portuguese (and others of European extraction) population seceded from their mestizo and mulatto counterparts, perhaps this would be true. Otherwise, nada.
May 15th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
It won’t be long until we will see refugees from Venuzela and Bolivia trying to get into the evil US.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Capital does produce development which does produce jobs. Even Kristoff, hardly a neocon, saw that (see “Two Cheers for Sweatshops”: http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html).
It would be nice if someone is out in lalala land (read socialist utopia) that they at least have an arguable theory.
There is certainly something to be said for the “race to the bottom” (disclaimer, this is not my opinion…just one that is at least logical from the other side): countries competing with each other to attract investment will continue to remove all human rights and environmental restrictions. Companies will come there to invest only so long as these conditions exist. Once the resources are pillaged and the people either revolting against the horrible conditions or refusing to work for slave wages, the companies will just move onto the next third world spot.
Basically, it worked in the developed world because globalization had not quite kicked in yet…so the companies were forced to raise wages to market level. Now, companies can just move.
There is a valid point to be made there.
HOWEVER…nationalizing is NOT the answer. As already pointed out, that will just drive capital and investment away and is essentially theft. No, the companies are not theives, they paid for the rights–whatever the market value was–and they invested.
Not to mention, what will they do with these nationalized resources that they do not have the technology to utilize (often at all, let alone efficiently)? Chances are they will cause more suffering and degredation in the process.
The solution will lie somewhere in capitalism. We have to speed up the process, not slow it down.
Enlightened capitalism or some such: in which we carry the idea of money as speech even further. Our money is an extension of ourselves. We donate our money, we spend our money, we invest our money–when we donate and spend, we take more into account than price, we also place a qualitative value on our use of money. We need to evolve to a point where we do this with our investments as well.
I believe this has already started and will only increase.
At any rate, as businesses expand, and demand outstrips the supply, these least developed countries will be in a better bargaining position.
The big bad guy isn’t the multinational corporation, anyway–it is third world despots who use their bargaining chips to enrich themselves, rather than their countries.
Eventually, enough companies will be burned when these criminals nationalize or are overthrown in revolutions and they will seek to invest in more stable locales, even if the wages and environmental restrictions are a little higher.
Least developed countries will be able to realize and utilize the fact that they offer more than labor at low wages–and carve out a market niche.
If this seems impossibly slow, consider the alternative–socialism has NOT worked. At least capitalism eventually works.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
You’re welcome Tommy.
Of course you don’t understand what does human dignity means as I do, I guess it is easier to dismiss it when you have it and when you and your parents were neither slaves nor third class citizen.
May I ask why do you think I am a leftist (or rather hatively judge)? Is it because I support justice? Can’t I support justice if I am from the right wing? Is it not part of right’s principles? Who dares deny people justice as a principle, let acts alone?
Anyway, you’re welcome anytime in Bolivia, I am sure an omniscient person like yourself can still learn a couple of interesting things. New perspectives are welcome, aren’t they? And in case this may encourage you to come, I am not leftist (far from that) and the commies in Bolivia don’t boil yankees, in case you doubted it.
Please don’t be offended, but I have a feeling you’re still young. One person I know used to say; ‘Either you’re idealist at 20 and realist at 40 or the other way round. The good news is that at 20 you still have the choice’. So if you still have the choice… but maybe you don’t see what it has to do with the subject, in which case try to figure out, and if you fail, trust me and try harder.
May 16th, 2006 at 1:03 am
Psss….Just a secret Simon Bolivar. Don’t tell anybody. I’m mostly German (3/4, in fact) but one of my grandparents was a Cherokee from eastern Oklahoma. Shhhhh….don’t tell anybody I’m not fully white.
May I ask why do you think I am a leftist
The way you talk, of course.
…and yes, I am still very young.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:13 am
I think you hit the nail on the head Sand.
As for oil being evil and the U.S. being evil for consuming oil (as some people believe)…just wait till the U.S. shifts to Ethanol (it’s coming sooner than a lot of people think) with ramp ups of production of E10 (90% ethanol + 10% gasoline) and E85 (85% ethanol + 15% gasoline). Heck, most American made cars are now “flex-fuel” cars that run on pure gasoline or E85.
55 million acres of corn + cellulosic extraction = no more foreign oil dependance.
Heck, throw shale oil into the mix and the United States becomes completely independent for fuels. I wonder what the Chavez’s and Morale’s of the world will do when the U.S. says “Thanks, but we don’t need to buy your oil anymore. Have a nice day.”
http://www.ethanol.org/talkingpoints.html
May 16th, 2006 at 3:36 am
Great reply. Touche!
May 16th, 2006 at 5:13 am
Nahhh, hemp is a better biomass fuel than corn.
May 16th, 2006 at 6:19 am
Jewish boy,
Hemp is overrated as a paper or fuel source. It is useful for certain other things….
May 16th, 2006 at 6:38 am
The conflict in Bolivia is not as much about the socialism or liberalism as it is about the ‘indians’ recovering their rights and dignity.
And they do this, how? Wealth redistribution?
Sorry. If you believe that, you ARE a leftist. And that’s probably the comment that lead Tommy to believe you were
Wealth redistribution is a bad enough theory when it’s applied domestically. When you start seizing foreign assets, you’re in far a long hard ride. But good luck. I mean that.
Unless you do understand that what they care about is not welfare, development or growth but simply dignity and justice you’ll totally miss the point.
This is an impossible point to get across, because human dignity cannot be quantified. Is the dignity of a Bolivian more important than the dignity of a Brazilian?
Maybe you need to start understanding that some people care much more about the Gross Domestic Hapiness than about the GDP and that you’re in no position to judge their choices.
We aren’t talking about a domestic issue here, we’re talking about an international issue.
And we certainly ARE in a position to judge Bolivia when it nationalizes another country’s financial assets. In fact, I’d guess Bolivia has already been judged by the world’s financial institutions. And any possible future investor. But again, I wish you luck. I have a feeling you are going to need it.
and Brazil could be a developed country in as little as 10 years if it really wanted to.
Really!? And why wouldn’t they want to?
May 16th, 2006 at 8:45 am
“and Brazil could be a developed country in as little as 10 years if it really wanted to.”
Yes, if Bolivia wouldn’t steal their stuff all the time.
“Of course you don’t understand what does human dignity means as I do, I guess it is easier to dismiss it when you have it and when you and your parents were neither slaves nor third class citizen.”
OF COURSE he doesn’t understand what human dignity means. Everybody knows that only “special” races understand that. Not just EVERYONE.
Do you have any idea how many people’s ancestors, even grand parents or parents were slaves or third class citizens? It’s not a special attribute of certain people, it’s too universal.
“the ‘indians’ recovering their rights and dignity.”
What “rights” do the Indians have that allow them to steal Brazilian property? How can any group have a right to steal? What makes them so special; the fact that their ancestors, some of them, had a different skin colour than other people? That’s certainly ridiculous!
May 16th, 2006 at 10:52 am
It’s nice to see how the word “dignity” is often used to justify the “nationalization” of the bolivian gas industry. Let me tell you one thing: in most of the latinamerica (if not in all) the mineral resources belong to the state because when we used to be a part of the Spanish Empire, Spanish law said that all the mineral resources belonged to the king. And after having the independance, having no king meant that ownership of mineral resources passed to the new states. Minerals belong to the people, who allow the State control them, capisci?
Now, the goverments issue a permit to the evil foreign companies to extract those minerals (oil in Venezuela, copper in Chile, etc etc), which meant that these companies had to pay taxes and revenues to the State, whils the rest of the stuff they built belonged to them (you know like reffineries). So, the petroleum companies worked in Bolivia under agreements similar to what I have told you, and if Evo wanted to nationalize what these companies had made, the bolivian goverment had to pay an indemnization to these companies (like Venezuela did when we nationalize our industry).
And continuing with the dignity bullshit, as a latinoamerican, my dear bolivian, you must know how the left speak about the dignity of the cuban people, fighting against the evil empire, forgetting they were under the protection of other evil empire. Lefties always talk about the dignity of the cuban in spite of the embargo, and their brave resistance to USA, and they forget to say that many cubans send to hell the dignity, take anything that can float, make a raft and sail to florida (you know, the rafts only go one way). So next time you want to speak of dignity, please, shut up.
May 16th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
“You are wrong about one thing S.M. There is in fact one SUCCESSFUL communist state in the world… its called France ”
really ?
communist : 5 % of people
right extreme (call them neocons) 20 %
May 16th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
So many economists, so little time!
eee you have a valid point. bloggers have accomplished so many revolutions
on ‘paper’ but what people in the real world need is something real.
Isn’t the wealth of nations is based on perceived credit extended out to…x years, and the perceived ability of people to consume ad infinitum what ever there is to
consume?
May 16th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
France has a double digit unemployment rate.
If that is what you call success then please give me more American capitalist failure.
May 16th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
sorry guy
http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002152.html
May 16th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
While your paper is certainly interesting nomad, it refers to “youth” rather than overall unemployment. Sorry.
Here is some historical data:
http://www.itcilo.it/english/actrav/telearn/global/ilo/seura/usunemp.htm
I believe the current French rate of unemployment hovers around, at least, 9.5% currently. The U.S. unemployment rate is about 4.7%.
Here is another article about France:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4830974.stm
May 16th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
well, it depends on what is taken in conts
each country has its own way of counting unemployment
and at the end it’ about the same average !
Hope you notice we have the best proportion for work rentability !
even if we are lazy, unemployed… etc…
damned, I am going to rest right now !
May 16th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Well, I agree Nomad.
Unemployment indicators are always a bit dishonest anyway. People who have given up on finding work are no longer counted, for instance.
May 16th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
> Yes, if Bolivia wouldn’t steal their stuff all the time.
Bolivia was looted for hundreds of years by the caucasian master
race - later by their proxies.
Colonialism and racism - suits all holocaust worshippers.
May 16th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
> HOWEVER…nationalizing is NOT the answer.
Especially when the parasites originate from the US.
While Israel only “owns” what it managed to steal, the US vampire
“owns” everything he needs by definition.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I always wonder what color the sky is in eee’s world.
May 18th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Yo, sandmonkey…
http://snefru.blogspot.com/2006/05/yikes-social-liberals-vs-capitalists.html
Yalla, you’re it.
May 18th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
@K-2: Thanks for the pouring hatred, it’s always very disappointing to see miserable displays of ignorance so I’ll consider your speech as a ‘very’ fraternal exchange blinded by emotion.
As for exploiting the resources, your point of view is very interesting indeed, but let me tell you first that I consider liberalism to be a great value but that its applications are not always fortunate. Maybe some examples may help you better see what I mean;
in the 30s the Shah signed a contract allowing The Anglo American to exploit the oil of Iran at a royalties rate based FOREVER on the 1930 oil prices. In 1952 when the prices were multiplied by 4 the Iranian governement considered the deal to be not fair anymore, yet there were very nice people like yourself to stand up and ask that Iran should respect FOREVER its engagement (which would make today receive 0.5$ per baril while it’s being sold at 75$)
Also, there was a ruler of ghinea that signed an engagement to export slaves at a fixed price until 1980, maybe should Britain ask for compensation for the ‘productivity’ loss. And why not impose on the chinese an embargo for not complying with the opium-for-tea deal that they dared to reject unilaterally without the agreement of their British counterparts.
The list is long . I never said that I did endorse or support the decision of the Bolivian Government, I just tried to let you know that it was not just a matter of economic policy or governmental greed but that explanations lie in social aspects of the situation in Bolivia which you do seem to ignore and that are very important to understand the situation accurately.
But maybe you don’t want to understand after all, maybe you just want to give us the universal truth you detain and also do some campaigning for TotalElfFina and the WTO, in which case let me tell you that there’s no more blind than those who don’t want to see and that the WTO doesn’t need your support because they consider such publicity to be completely useless (having worked for them).
But keep on your intelligentia investigations, it’s really moving.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
xght rbxio xctsbj cwqf tahfckgs okegsw ocyzg
July 27th, 2009 at 5:01 am
I have read some posts about the so called “nacionalizations” of Evo Morales. Seems that none of you live (suffers) in Bolivia. Well, I am.
This is not about the indians, not about “dignity” or other stuff that gubernamental propaganda is selling to the world and idiots consuming with hungry. In fact, old constitution recognizes exactly equal rights for all citizens without making distictions of “indians” or “Whites” or etcetera.
Chavez is massively supporting Morales with billions of dollars. That money is not for free, of course. Two objetives he want to reach: to control Brazil by controlling bolivian government, coz that allow him to control bolivian gas (more than 60 % of brazilian industry is dependant of the bolivian gas), and forcing Brazil to buy Venezuelan gas. If Brazil does, Chavez will control the 9th. bigger economy of the world.
Lula was only playing the game because he is not ready (yet) to kick Morales and Chavez butts. He still need cheap gas desesperalty. But that will end soon, coz Petrobras has discovered big oil and gas reservoirs in his country. Lula just need time to develop those reservoirs. When that happens, bye bye Bolivia, Bye Bye Chavez….
Meanwhile, Morales is reciving from Chavez big amounts of money (stoled to venezuelan people) that Morales uses to buy syndicate and indian leaders and constantly creating troubles and turmoils, making citizens figths each other and taking advantage to discredit and even put in jail political opponents, ending with political opposition.
Nobody is in possition to control him in Bolivia. He has spend more money in tree years than former administrations in 12 years, ALL TOGETHER !… he dont give any account of his expenses because he controls the general attourney and big part of congress, the ones that it suppost to control him. Not account he has render to people, so nobody know where that money is.
He is stealing big money and when opposition leaders demand clarification, he accuses them as imperialists, oligarchs, traitors to the motherland, etc. and launch the violent “Social Movments” (Syndicates paid by him) against the oppositor. And that is only a little part of what is happening here.
My country is a hell thanks to Chavez and Chavez´s employee, Evo Morales.