Chavez moves on

...to nationalise US corporation owned electricity utility, as he approaches his third term: :D

Quote:

---

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced plans Monday to nationalize Venezuela's electrical and telecommunications companies, pledging to create a socialist state in a bold move with echoes of Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution.

"We're moving toward a socialist republic of Venezuela, and that requires a deep reform of our national constitution," Chavez said in a televised address after swearing in his Cabinet. "We are in an existential moment of Venezuelan life. We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it."
...
"All of that which was privatized, let it be nationalized," Chavez said, referring to "all of those sectors in an area so important and strategic for all of us as is electricity."

"The nation should recover its ownership of strategic sectors," he said.

Before Chavez was re-elected last month with nearly 63 percent of the vote, he promised to take a more radical turn toward socialism.

---

Chavez to nationalize U.S.-based utility - CNN.com

if only we could do the same in Europe, destroying public utility services in the name of freedom is a silly excercise

Yea, he can take em over and be run by the govt, like TTT, TOT, EGAT or the utilitys in Mexico, over priced, never work, wore out infrastructure, have a lot of people employed and no body working or that knows much more that who can get em the job.
to say nothing of the railroads both here and Mexico,, same same.

63% of the country voted for him, and he made no secret that he was going to continue the journey toward socialism.

i hope they are successful.

I used to like this bloke for sticking one up the US, but he's obviously going to do his best to push the country back afew decades. How many times does it need to be tried to prove that nationalised utilities and socialism don't work.

Nationalized oil is giving Venezuelans the cheapest gasoline on the planet. Resources should benefit the nation...not a small select cabal of industrialists.

^It will still be the biggest cock up since Dunkirk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

Nationalized oil is giving Venezuelans the cheapest gasoline on the planet. Resources should benefit the nation...not a small select cabal of industrialists.

---

Private or nationalised, Venezuelans won't need to dig deep into their pockets to fill up for quite a while to come.

As to the move towards unbridled socialism, like many big cheeses before that let their magnificense go to their heads, this might well be the blunder that brings him down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

Nationalized oil is giving Venezuelans the cheapest gasoline on the planet. Resources should benefit the nation...not a small select cabal of industrialists.

---

Private or nationalised, Venezuelans won't need to dig deep into their pockets to fill up for quite a while to come.

As to the move towards unbridled socialism, like many big cheeses before that let their magnificense go to their heads, this might well be the blunder that brings him down.

---

I am afraid you are right, but don't forget that some of the most succesful economies of the world are, at least in part, socialist or communist. There may perhaps be more than one way to achieve prosperity.

Look at the history of British railways to see how sometimes it's best to keep certain public services in the hands of a central government. After decades of private ownership dating back to the late Victorian age, the British government finally had had enough and nationalised the railways. The lack of investment of successive governments doesn't alter the fact that left to private ownership they were a disaster.

How can you morally take a public utility that has been paid for my the taxpayer and overnight turn a handful of private individuals into millionaires?
BT was actually OK as a public utility, and BP was incredibly successful. What Thatcher did to these was nothing short of criminal. I say good luck to Chavez and I hope he puts his money where his mouth is and lets the people of Venezuela benefit directly from what are potentially very rich businesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallace

How can you morally take a public utility that has been paid for my the taxpayer and overnight turn a handful of private individuals into millionaires?

---

Exactly. Public Utilities should stay in the hand of the state, even if they are run efficiently like a private business. Public utilities shouldn't maximize shareholders dividends, but serve the public first. We should nationalize all public utilities, it's too strategic, they are the core of a well functioning society. Take that away and you are destroying the foundation of our society. See the Post Office debate in the UK for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallace

BT was actually OK as a public utility, and BP was incredibly successful. What Thatcher did to these was nothing short of criminal.

---

Right on. Same with Argentina, and the cause of its collapse. Selling off those great assets at a discount to satisfy some kind of demaguoge agenda was beyond criminal, it's treason.

Same thing happened with water supplies in the UK. One of the largest owners of British water is now a French company. So how is that good for the average Brit?

When you consider what the French have managed to do with their railway systems and telecommunications (and I know they are not making a profit) then this has to be the right way for critical public services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallace

One of the largest owners of British water is now a French company

---

Generale des Eaux, isn't it ? one of the most evil company out there. Every water management contract they got from local governments, they managed to increase the price of water by 300%

France Telecom used to be OK, but like BT it's all fucked up again.

At the end, the private sector will reach the same folly as the state companies when it comes to waste of money and mismanagement. The difference is that some shareholders get bigger dividend cheques.

Privatization was the big rip-off of the 80s and 90s. Hopefully, governments will come back to their sense and switch back to the more traditional socialist economic models. Things as they are can't go on like that forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallace

How can you morally take a public utility that has been paid for my the taxpayer and overnight turn a handful of private individuals into millionaires?

---

Exactly. Public Utilities should stay in the hand of the state, even if they are run efficiently like a private business. Public utilities shouldn't maximize shareholders dividends, but serve the public first. We should nationalize all public utilities, it's too strategic, they are the core of a well functioning society. Take that away and you are destroying the foundation of our society. See the Post Office debate in the UK for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallace

BT was actually OK as a public utility, and BP was incredibly successful. What Thatcher did to these was nothing short of criminal.

---

Right on. Same with Argentina, and the cause of its collapse. Selling off those great assets at a discount to satisfy some kind of demaguoge agenda was beyond criminal, it's treason.

---

The problem with government owned operations it becomes accecptable to operate at a loss. The degree of acceptability becomes greater and greater. To solve umeployment the government hires more and more employees and the utilities become a bloated wasteful operation. Acceptence of wasteful operations has a corrupting effect on society.
Publically owned companies are answerable to the shareholders and privately owned businesses are answerable to their lenders. Money is used more efficiently when there are investors expecting a return on the risk of their investment.
Which year was that? Argentinians seem to make mistakes again and again. It's almost cyclical.

And PLCs have further obligations and restrictions reflecting the responsibility they have towards the public.
Still, wouldn't it be nice if a profitable business was state-owned and the profits be used to provide further services to the public?

^ We're not talking about Privatising utilities, but Nationalising private companies. Completely different.

^ it's related. Private companies in charge of strategic businesses should be nationalized. Public utilities have been privatized but I wouldn't be surprised in a decade or two, after government sober up from their overzealous liberal policies, that we revert back to nationalization for strategic assets. It's the only way to go. The private sector is run like a mafia or will turn into a mafia if they are not controlled.

Yes, got a bit distracted earlier.
The issue is nationalising privately owned industries.
The point which has been made is that key strategic industries may be owned by foreign or international shareholders who have little interest beyond profits and a strategy to ensure future profits - this is very different from the aims of a state-ownership.

Now, in Venezuela, and South-America in general, private ownership and neo-liberalism have been tools applied by US capital and its proponents.

From a Chomsky interview:

Quote:

---

Support for democracy has been declining—not for democracy but for the democratic governments—has been declining through Latin America, for a pretty good reason, the governments have been associated with neo-liberal programs which undermine democracy—IMF, treasury department programs—so your support for the governments are declining. There are exceptions, and the major exception by far is Venezuela.
...
In Venezuela, the oil is in Zulia province, which is where the opposition candidate is coming from, right on the boarder of Colombia (one of the only states [in Latin America] where the US has a firm military presence). It’s a rich province, pretty anti-Chavez, and it happens to be where most of the oil is, and in fact there is rumor of a Zulia independence movement, which, if they can carry it off, the US could then intervene to protect against the dictator. That’s Venezuela.

---

Privatised utilities are usually more productive and efficient. They also tend to keep their processes and equipment up to date, whereas nationalised companies are usually bloated, inefficient and don't spend enough money on modern technology or R & D.

That's why this is a backward step.

[Bought to you by Economics 101]

How very true MTD, Mexico nationalized everything, now they have shitty Phone service and very expensive, shitty electric and train service and all expensive, Pemex oil and fuel prices are very high and it is their own oil they use.
When things go private then there is room for competition and service gets better and prices have to stay competitive.
Thailand is a good example of nationalized utilities where everything is over priced and service and performance is shitty, TTT MAXNET ADSL is shit, but it is the only one you can get on TTT lines. They shine your ass off when you complain, either pay it or do without, fucked up attitude..
EGAT is a junk outfit and rates have went up damn near double and service and quality is still the shits, running anywhere from 160 to 240 Volts at our house and continuously variable, and interrupted service.

USA does have private phone co. that are not allowed to form a monopoly, service is great and prices are as cheap as anywhere in the world.
Power co. are private and service is good and dependable.

You will never convince me that nationalization is a good thing for a quality public utility's because you will always end up with pork barrel operations.

The downside of private utilities is that they can and do screw the consumer regularly. A few years ago California had an electrical supply crisis because the utilities got together and found it more profitable to send the electricity to states where there was more profit to be made, and, as a result California faced shortages and blackouts (which subsequently resulted in profits once the electricity was sent back to CA).

I think national energy sources should be for the public good and ought to be nationalized. If the government is the one building the dams, for example, then the public ought to be getting the power cheap since the public funded the dams with their taxes. I think it's crap that the government makes a profit by selling the power to the utilities and then the utilities then turn around and make a profit selling the power to consumers. Likewise, if the oil fields are on public lands then the government makes money through royalties paid by the oil companies....why create more middlemen? Just refine and sell the refined products on the open market.

Back to Reality for the Socialists and Commies

Can't you just imagine a Govt. operated refinery, shit look at the billions of dollars they have pissed off or lost in Iraq.

Yes the govt. did build a lot of generation dams, some are private, the private ones are smaller and they do distribute the product.
But the govt has no infrastructure to distribute the power to homes and small business, but they will run high voltage lines into large users like aluminum plants but it would be cost prohibitive to buy existing or build new grids.
And the power that stopped going to Calif. and went elsewhere was generated by private industry co. in Texas that sold to the highest bidder, and Calif was not it.
Them assholes in southern Calif. super city's are always crying for some thing, they take all the water from Nor Cal and ship it to LA, they have been trying for years to get Oregon Columbia river water sent down to them, they want water from Idaho, Washington, damn who's fault is it that they built a super city in the fucking desert,,fuck em.

I really don't see much difference between nationalized energy and energy controlled by a small number of companies acting like a virtual monopoly.

At least if you don't like the bastards running the government you can toss them out. Can we easily do such if the oil companies decide to gang up and charge more for gasoline?

Public resources should be owned by the public. That goes for oil, coal, electricity, water, etc. It just seems stupid to pay the extra cost simply to give the illusion that you are buying from a private company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallace

I say good luck to Chavez and I hope he puts his money where his mouth is and lets the people of Venezuela benefit directly from what are potentially very rich businesses.

---

:iagree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

I really don't see much difference between nationalized energy and energy controlled by a small number of companies acting like a virtual monopoly.

At least if you don't like the bastards running the government you can toss them out. Can we easily do such if the oil companies decide to gang up and charge more for gasoline?

Public resources should be owned by the public. That goes for oil, coal, electricity, water, etc. It just seems stupid to pay the extra cost simply to give the illusion that you are buying from a private company.

---

Speaking of oil....some smart person here on Teak Door said that the price of oil is going down because of the elections in the U.S. (last Year)
Ahhh hardy haar-haar-haar....
The elections are over and the price dropped even more.
I hate those bastards!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

Nationalized oil is giving Venezuelans the cheapest gasoline on the planet. Resources should benefit the nation...not a small select cabal of industrialists.

---

Agree 100%.


Speaking of which....there is a cabal in Iraq that just signed a 30 year deal....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallalai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallace

I say good luck to Chavez and I hope he puts his money where his mouth is and lets the people of Venezuela benefit directly from what are potentially very rich businesses.

---

:iagree:

---

Chavez is a fool !
Personaly, I like the way Putin is playing the game of "Democracy vs. Socialism". Even the Chinese know how to play this modern game of ping pong.

Wrong. The prices did drop prior to the election (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more) but are now higher than they were prior to the election.

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif

If you take the profit motive out of selling oil and gasoline the incentive to use wisely will suddenly be fashionable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

I really don't see much difference between nationalized energy and energy controlled by a small number of companies acting like a virtual monopoly.

At least if you don't like the bastards running the government you can toss them out. Can we easily do such if the oil companies decide to gang up and charge more for gasoline?

Public resources should be owned by the public. That goes for oil, coal, electricity, water, etc. It just seems stupid to pay the extra cost simply to give the illusion that you are buying from a private company.

---

Most public run state enterprises are normally run by inept pain in the arse tossers.No competition means crap service IMO.It's the same in most countries.Thailand is a prime example.

Best bet would be a privately run organisation with a govt. controll over prices .

Except that private run organizations tend to bribe politicians to get what they end up wanting anyways (ala the oil industry's base in Bush-Cheney's home states). So you end up having a nationalized government being controlled by a cabal of companies with plenty of money in their pocket to screw the rest of us. In the U.S. the oil companies control the government. I think it's time to have it the other way around with volunteer citizen committees controlling whether or not the entity is respecting the wishes of the population.

No competition means crap service whether it's your local government office or local private company with no real competition. I could just as easily get screwed by the local phone or cable company because there is no competition.

But, aside from that, which would result in higher prices? Government controlled and sold energy or privately owned energy controlled by a handful of companies with high profit motives?

Should we be paying high gasoline prices when a chairman of an oil company can retire with hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement bonuses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

Except that private run organizations tend to bribe politicians to get what they end up wanting anyways

---

Yes, South-America is notorious for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

I could just as easily get screwed by the local phone or cable company because there is no competition.

---

You could, but I guess in practise the employees are under more scrutiny than public servants, so you actually don't get screwed as much.

I'm not talking about employees doing the screwing.

The CEO who was responsible for the merger of Exxon-Mobil retired last year. As part of the retirement package the company paid over $200,000 for him to continue being a member of a country club and promised 2 years of round-the-clock security for he and his wife. Exxon also made $36 billion in profits while gasoline prices hit record levels last year.

Now, can you tell me how the government pumping, refining, and selling oil (oil owned by the government here) could possibly screw me more?

We aren't talking about nationalizing Wal-Mart or Big C or Burger King. We're talking about nationalizing public resources coming from public lands which should benefit the public as a result of destroying or polluting those lands. Instead we sell the rights to mine or pump to for-profit companies for next to nothing, the oil companies pump, refine, and make record profits. Profits which don't go back into raising the average employee's wages or lowering the price of products but profits which go into the very abuses I mentioned above.

Surely there must be a way in a democracy to nationalize certain resources to benefit the population without it actually being worse off than we are now.

Even if you nationalize the oil pumping and refining and then let private sellers sell the refined products at the local level it surely could be better than it is now.

And, under Chavez, the people of Venezuela benefit from their national resource instead of some CEO in a foreign country or some overweight slob in a certain northern country driving a 6,000 pound vehicle that gets poor gas mileage.

If there's oil in Venezuela the people of Venezuela ought to benefit first.

Quote:

---

^Personally, I don't care how overweight somebody is. (I'm no lightweight:)).As for being a slob,I have no idea.Do you know these people?

People should benifit from the oil... I agree with.I also think that the really poor of the country that do not have vehicles should benifit too.Maybe they should up the price of gas to help the poor....

---

Can you answer this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

I really don't see much difference between nationalized energy and energy controlled by a small number of companies acting like a virtual monopoly.

At least if you don't like the bastards running the government you can toss them out. Can we easily do such if the oil companies decide to gang up and charge more for gasoline?

Public resources should be owned by the public. That goes for oil, coal, electricity, water, etc. It just seems stupid to pay the extra cost simply to give the illusion that you are buying from a private company.

---

Speaking of oil....some smart person here on Teak Door said that the price of oil is going down because of the elections in the U.S. (last Year)
Ahhh hardy haar-haar-haar....
The elections are over and the price dropped even more.
I hate those bastards!

---

NEW YORK - Oil touched a fresh 19-month low under $53 a barrel on Thursday after Russia restarted pumping crude through a pipeline to Europe and a rush of selling continued after the price crashed through key support at $55.

P.S.
they are expecting the oil price to drop even more...even though the U.S. elections are over. And here comes the good news.....this price is the same all over the world...even in the good old USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

Nationalized oil is giving Venezuelans the cheapest gasoline on the planet. Resources should benefit the nation...not a small select cabal of industrialists.

---

Private or nationalised, Venezuelans won't need to dig deep into their pockets to fill up for quite a while to come.

As to the move towards unbridled socialism, like many big cheeses before that let their magnificense go to their heads, this might well be the blunder that brings him down.

---

I am afraid you are right, but don't forget that some of the most succesful economies of the world are, at least in part, socialist or communist. There may perhaps be more than one way to achieve prosperity.

---

I would appreciate a better explanation of this statement. Better yet an example.

I don't understand the debate about state run enterprise efficiency. Any firm with a monopoly or over 10,000 employees is not going to be run efficiently. The only efficiency in those private companies is screwing the employees pay and benefits to pay for the boss big bonus at the end of the year. It's simple as that. Now state enterprises obviously have decency and think their employees should benefit from better pay and benefits. is that fundamentaly wrong ? the issue of employee benefits is a different matter from the strategic ownership of national assets. If we can seperate those issues, the public at large would understand the need for nationalization, instead of debating jealously about employees benefits in state companies.

Oil prices went up after the election. Only a mild winter thus far in the NE USA has led to a decline in the past week.

https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif