Chavez moves on

**HermantheGerman** · 12-01-2007, 12:19 AM

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!

**barbaro** · 12-01-2007, 12:26 AM

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....

**HermantheGerman** · 12-01-2007, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Wallalai

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.

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.

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 12:33 AM

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.

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 12:35 AM

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

**Little Chuchok** · 12-01-2007, 12:43 AM

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 .

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 12:51 AM

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?

**stroller** · 12-01-2007, 01:03 AM

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.

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.

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 01:12 AM

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.

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 01:14 AM

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.

**Little Chuchok** · 12-01-2007, 01:19 AM

^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?

**HermantheGerman** · 12-01-2007, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

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.

**HermantheGerman** · 12-01-2007, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by keda

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.

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 02:05 AM

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.

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 02:10 AM

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.

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

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.

The shareholders in a state enterprise would be all taxpayers.

**Little Chuchok** · 12-01-2007, 02:14 AM

Can you answer the part about the slob surasak??????????????

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

The shareholders in a state enterprise would be all taxpayers.

In other words, the customers.

The problem with modern day capitalism, is that companies have shifted their focus away from customers to shareholders. Big companies customers are actually the shareholders. This is exactly how dotcom companies used to operate and we all know how it ended. Was the dotcrash a prelude of what to expect in the future ?

**RDN** · 12-01-2007, 03:36 AM

Chavez blames 'alarmism' for Venezuela stock plunge

Wed Jan 10, 2007

CARACAS, Jan 10 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday said a plunge in Venezuela's stock market, which lost a fifth of its value on Tuesday, was due to speculative "alarmism" after he announced nationalizations.

"The stock exchange can fall but the Venezuelan economy is not going to fall -- it's booming like never before," Chavez said in a speech after being sworn in for a new six-year term in which he has pledged to nationalize telecommunications and electricity companies.

"They have created a scandal because of my nationalization announcement (on Monday)," he said. "... But they are playing at using alarmism. Well continue playing, enjoy yourselves, enjoy yourselves because what's coming down the road is nice. So start to enjoy playing with alarmism," he added.

What a clown!

**stroller** · 12-01-2007, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

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.

To put it poigantly:
Private companies have an interest in efficiency to maximise profits, if for nothing else.
State run monopolies fear neither competition nor financial losses.
I'd say in the last 150 years we have seen the advantages and disadvantages of both.

Perhaps change is a key element, whenever one system unfolds its disadvantages, it will eventually be replaced.

**Whiteshiva** · 12-01-2007, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by keda

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.

China, Vietnam, Scandinavian countries. Is that good enough for you?

**Little Chuchok** · 12-01-2007, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by RDN

Chavez blames 'alarmism' for Venezuela stock plunge

Wed Jan 10, 2007

CARACAS, Jan 10 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday said a plunge in Venezuela's stock market, which lost a fifth of its value on Tuesday, was due to speculative "alarmism" after he announced nationalizations.

"The stock exchange can fall but the Venezuelan economy is not going to fall -- it's booming like never before," Chavez said in a speech after being sworn in for a new six-year term in which he has pledged to nationalize telecommunications and electricity companies.

"They have created a scandal because of my nationalization announcement (on Monday)," he said. "... But they are playing at using alarmism. Well continue playing, enjoy yourselves, enjoy yourselves because what's coming down the road is nice. So start to enjoy playing with alarmism," he added.

What a clown!

He would fit right in here.What on earth did he think would happen.

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 09:54 AM

he is right, it's an overreaction from the market

and yes he is also a clown

**Wallace** · 12-01-2007, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

China, Vietnam, Scandinavian countries. Is that good enough for you?

Well, not really a good example. Saab were sold to General Motors. China is just another corrupt capitalist disaster waiting to happen.

The biggest problem with capitalism American style is that the big companies always win. They simply buy out all the smaller competition and then take over. We end up with what are effectively private monopolies. It's happened in the oil and gas industries and, you could argue, the drug companies - the two biggest threats to stability and peace in the world.

When private companies took over gas and water in the UK, prices virtually doubled overnight, profits soared and the privileged few benefitted. The average person saw no difference to their gas or water supplies, but in the case of the latter, the UK's natural resources were so badly managed that for a time water shortages were common after lengthy dry spells.

When you see what Shell have done to the environment in Nigeria, it just makes you sick. In one instant they were offering money for schools and materials to a local community in return for drilling rights. The amount - about $500. Mind you, you have to blame the Nigerian government as much as Shell.

So when you see what Chavez is up to, it's understandable and it has to be right for the people of Venezuela. Otherwise, they'll just get shat on from a great height by nasty multinationals and greedy government officials.

**HermantheGerman** · 12-01-2007, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by keda

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.

China, Vietnam, Scandinavian countries. Is that good enough for you?

Not realy.
Scandinavian countries I believe are mostly social democrats not socialist or communist.
China and Vietnam you need to explain further. If you meant the highest growth "right now", you are right.

Thread: Chavez moves on

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions