hahaha...moron from Caracas :)
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/wo...z.html?_r=1&hp


CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chávez, buffeted by falling oil prices that threaten to damage his efforts to establish a Socialist-inspired state, is quietly courting Western oil companies once again.

Until recently, Mr. Chávez had pushed foreign oil companies here into a corner by nationalizing their oil fields, raiding their offices with tax authorities and imposing a series of royalties increases.

But faced with the plunge in prices and a decline in domestic production, senior officials have begun soliciting bids from some of the largest Western oil companies in recent weeks — including Chevron, Royal Dutch/Shell and Total of France — promising them access to some of the world’s largest petroleum reserves, according to energy executives and industry consultants here.

Their willingness to even consider investing in Venezuela reflects the scarcity of projects open to foreign companies in other top oil nations, particularly in the Middle East.

But the shift also shows how the global financial crisis is hampering Mr. Chávez’s ideological agenda and demanding his pragmatic side. At stake are no less than Venezuela’s economic stability and the sustainability of his rule. With oil prices so low, the longstanding problems plaguing Petróleos de Venezuela, the national oil company that helps keep the country afloat, have become much harder to ignore.

Embracing the Western companies may be the only way to shore up Petróleos de Venezuela and the raft of social welfare programs, like health care and higher education for the poor, that have been made possible by oil proceeds and have helped bolster his popular support.

“If re-engaging with foreign oil companies is necessary to his political survival, then Chávez will do it,” said Roger Tissot, an authority on Venezuela’s oil industry at Gas Energy, a Brazilian consulting company focusing on Latin America. “He is a military man who understands losing a battle to win the war.”

While the new oil projects would not be completed for years, Mr. Chávez is already looking beyond the end of his current term in 2012 by putting forward a referendum, expected as early as next month, that would let him run for indefinite re-election.

In recent years, Mr. Chávez has preferred partnerships with national oil companies from countries like Iran, China and Belarus. But these ventures failed to reverse Venezuela’s declining oil output. State-controlled oil companies from other nations have also been invited to bid this time, but the large private companies are seen as having an advantage, given their expertise in building complex projects in Venezuela and elsewhere in years past.

The bidding process was first conceived last year when oil prices were higher but Petróleos de Venezuela’s production decline was getting impossible to overlook. Still, the process is moving into high gear only this month, with the authorities here expected to start reviewing the companies’ bidding plans on new areas of the Orinoco Belt, an area in southern Venezuela with an estimated 235 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Altogether, more than $20 billion in investment could be required to assemble devilishly complex projects capable of producing a combined 1.2 million barrels of oil a day.

Mr. Chávez’s olive branch to Western oil companies comes after he nationalized their oil fields in 2007. Two companies, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, left Venezuela and are still waging legal battles over lost projects.

But Venezuela may have little choice but to form new ventures with foreign oil companies. Nationalizations in other sectors, like agriculture and steel manufacturing, are fueling capital flight, leaving Venezuela reliant on oil for about 93 percent of its export revenue in 2008, up from 69 percent in 1998 when Mr. Chávez was first elected.

In the past year, with higher oil prices paving the way, Mr. Chávez also vastly expanded Petróleos de Venezuela’s power, inextricably linking it to his political program. He directed the oil company to build roads, import and distribute food, build docks and shipyards and set up a light-bulb factory. He even expanded it into areas like milk production, soybean farming and the training of athletes after a weak performance at the Beijing Olympics.

Oil makes the US deal with bad people.

We must continue to find alternative energy sources.

US isn't the only WESTERN world ;) In fact:

Chevron, Royal Dutch/Shell and Total of France

None of the US right there :thumbup:

Chevron?

Chevron is indeed an American company.

Excuse my one mis-print :rolleyes:

Socialist...failure :)

Venezuela's oil tends to be high in sulfur, bad for cars. Yuck.

But yeah, socialism isn't that easy to run. :D However, I bet once oil rises again, Chávez will kick them out again.

None of them were ever kicked out. Their taxes were raised as was the fee/commission they pay to lease the oil wells, and they decided to leave. There is a difference. Some of the oil companies did not leave and continued to operate there and pay the higher taxes and fees. All of them had that choice.

translated => they were kicked out :) :nanana:

"Sure you can build your product that was $1.00 to make but now we are applying a tax making it cost you $12.00 to make...want to stay?"

It wasn't like that at all. The taxes were a percentage of profits. If it was how you say, then none of the oil companies would have stayed. But many of them did.

Many of them stayed, yup, that is why they are searching for companies now..because of that vast amount that stayed :rofl:

Socialism = Failure...failed then, fails still, always has, always will :thumbup:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...ezuela-Oil.php

Oil companies see risks in Venezuela but face few alternatives, analysts say
June 26, 2007
The Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela: Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips have decided the profits are not worth the risk of staying in Venezuela and are writing off multibillion-dollar investments in the South American country.

"The risks are clearly there and growing in Venezuela," said Patrick Esteruelas, an analyst at the New York-based Eurasia Group. "But when compared to other nations, there are still sizable and substantial opportunities."

Under Chavez, Venezuela first raised royalty and tax rates, then later assumed majority control of all oil projects as part of a larger nationalization drive of "strategic" economic sectors. Chavez says those policies are ensuring that oil benefits Venezuelans instead of foreign corporations and governments.

Rising energy prices and Venezuela's huge oil deposits have strengthened his hand: the country's reserves are the largest in the Western Hemisphere and may eventually prove bigger than Saudi Arabia's if it continues certifying heavy oil deposits in the Orinoco River region.

Chevron Corp., Britain's BP PLC, France's Total SA and Norway's Statoil ASA — unwilling to forgo that opportunity — agreed Tuesday to stay on as minority partners in new joint ventures controlled by state-run Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA.

But Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips broke ranks, rejecting the terms, effectively writing off their investments in the Orinoco and any future chance at tapping its potential. It remains unclear how the companies will be compensated.

In Venezuela, the terms are now relatively clear: By law, private companies can take as much as a 49.9 stake in oil production projects and they face flat income tax and royalty rates of 50 percent and 33.3 percent, respectively.





4 out of 6 certainly qualifies as "many" or "most".

not sure what you're proving, that they left? :rofl:

That the two biggest in the world left, the others want viable market share?

Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips have decided the profits are not worth the risk of staying in Venezuela and are writing off multibillion-dollar investments in the South American country.

:)

You got that right.

Depends on what you consider a success. If having a few wealthy people with 99% of the wealth, and everyone else with nothing is considered a success, then socialism is indeed a failure. If having several million homeless people is considered a success, then socialism is indeed a failure. If 15% of your population having no access to health care is considered a success, then socialism is indeed a failure.

And in what instance is that true? Again...socialism...failure...just look around the globe right now. Everyone is STILL hoping the Capitalist market will pull the world from deep recession. Sure aren't yelling "hey France, bail us out" :nanana:

I think you should start a movement to privatize the fire department and the police department since you are against socialism. Just think of how much more productive they would be if they were in the private sector and were motivated by profit.

blah blah blah...you always go back to that when every other aspect of your, excuse me, the socialist agenda is slapped down. :thumbup:

More of your "all or nothing" approach...go Utopia..worked out great so far :rofl: Face is, socialism...is a failure. Very little is beneficial about it. Theory is great, practice sucks.

Venezuela certainly is not an "all or nothing" approach. They are 90% capitalist and have only nationalized a few industries including the oil industry. Europe has more socialism than Venezuela.

If the police department and fire department work so well under socialism, then why not the oil industry? American oil companies took in more than $130 billion in profits last year. That money would sure look very nice in the form of a tax refund check to every American, the same way they do it in Alaska and in Venezuela.

Alaska is part of the United States, right? How come no outrage about their socialized oil industry being a failure? Maybe it's not actually a failure?

Um, ah, you lost me....what are you talking about? Have you accepted my socialist failure approach? Sound like it. If so, good job by you. First step is admitting you have a problem :rofl:

As we (i.e. you and I) have gone around before, many areas of the US are NOT like New York. MD for instance has volunteer FD's. And I would never claim they are run with tremendous success ;)

Why should oil companies share their profits? Do you write them a check every year to help R&D? Don't think so. You pay for what you use. :)

I don't want to get involved in a long debate here, just want to throw in my 2 cents.

In my opinion, Socialism will never work because a centralized government is an incredibly bad way to run a business. The organizational approach does not reward performance which means it's very inefficient.

Capitalism is oriented for efficiencies and therefore can execute and get things done, can not only create new inventions but as importantly, commercialize them and bring them to market where they can actually help people.

I'm also not saying capitalism is perfect, or that there aren't plenty of crooks in it. Lots of problems.

But, in the end I believe socialism is an supreme failure. No rewards for risks or success - socialism promotes mediocrity and laziness.

There shouldn't be oil companies anymore than there are police companies who police the streets for profit. The oil found in the United States should be the property of the American people and the only cost we should pay is the cost of getting that oil to the pump, not an inflated cost so someone can make a profit on it. And if there is to be a profit on it, then that money should be refunded to the people as is the case in Alaska. All people in Alaska receive an oil dividend check each year for any profits from the publicly owned Alaskan oil wells. The oil in the entire country should be this way.


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...a-Dividend.php
Alaska residents will get annual oil royalty dividend of $1,654 each
September 19, 2007
The Associated Press


Nearly every Alaskan will soon receive a check for $1,654 (€1,183), their share of the state's oil riches, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announced.

The dividend checks are derived from the state's oil royalty investment program and distributed each year to eligible residents — just for living here for a full calendar year.

Slightly more than 600,000 men, women and children in 248 communities will receive the dividend this year, according to the Revenue Department. The state's estimated population is just over 670,000 people.

It is a perk that separates Alaska from the rest of the U.S. and was recently parodied in "The Simpsons Movie," which prominently features the television cartoon family's journey to Alaska.

So would you support privatizing of your local fire and police departments? Just think....you would eliminate all the "mediocrity and laziness" that exists at these institutions since the employees would be motivated by profit.

That is all well and good, go petition that :) Ask Russia how socialized fuel works out :)

PS: way to back off post #15/16

I should clarify. I don't consider fire and police to be socialistic although I can see why one can make that argument. Moreover, I don't know if police and fire departments are more or less lazy than the rest of the population in America.

Saying they are lazy is something you are suggesting by inferring that's what I'm saying. A misunderstanding on your part.

My view is at the bigger level - not considering some (limited) forms of centralized government services and state/local fire safety which could be run via capitalism but aren't. A country that is based on capitalism with some form of government provided services is not bad or a form of socialism because it's very limited by comparison. There is also a major factor in humans that motivate them to help others and they find their careers through fire, police etc.

Capitalism with punishment for those that abuse and harm is a far superior form of government - If I didn't think so I'd move to a socialist country. It must be difficult to not get all the benefits of socialism and still live here if I read your perspective. It's such a dichotomy of philosophical and practical experiences.

What country in your opinion represents the best of socialism, I'm not kidding, just want to try to better consider your point of view.

I would, except 3 of Russia's 4 largest oil/gas companies are private. The only major nationalized Russian oil/gas company is Transneft. And last I checked, they were doing quite well....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28444991
Transneft Q3 profit rises 67 pct

http://bnott.com/3698.html
Net profit of Transneft for 9 months increased by 33%

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-29364646_ITM
Up and away: Transneft sees profits soar 24%

Just so you realize, I'm not in favor of 100% socialism. But I think capitalism encourages corruption. I'll give you an example.

If you were to privatize the fire department, then the new private fire department would make money when they put out fires. More fires = more money. Do you think they would send inspectors around making sure every building was safe from fires and promoting fire safety? Of course not. That would be against their better interest.

In this example, maybe the government would be the one to send fire inspectors around even if the fire departments themselves were private. So here is where you end up with corruption. Maybe the company that owns 75% of the fire departments in your city gives a big campaign contribution to the mayor, and the members of the city council. As a perk, they cut the fire inspection budget, and thus fewer buildings get inspected. Or maybe they decide to cut the entire department. No more inspections at all. There is a budget defecit, so something has to be cut...

My little example can be applied to almost every industry, from military hardware contractors, who profit from war and contribute to pro-war candidates, to drug companies that contribute to candidates who support fewer FDA regulations. A recent example would be the large banks getting a free handout, or "bailout", by the politicians that they help to put in office.

My opinion is that capitalism is a great thing on a small level. But when you start getting to the level of large corporations, it has outlived its usefulness, and then just serves to corrupt government and cause harm to society.

I think all major industry should be nationalized, but small business should of course be allowed and even encouraged. We actually have anti-trust laws on the books in this country, but it's been many decades since they have been enforced. 80 years ago, companies like Exxon-Mobil, or Citicorp would not have been allowed to grow to nearly their current size. And we would be better off.

Capitalism thrives when there is competition. Once you reach a point where there are just a few large companies in each industry, competition goes bye-bye, and so does any benefits of capitalism.

I also find it ironic that the same person (not you) who regularly posts about how the big oil companies are artificially inflating the oil price is the same one who opposes the nationalization of the oil industry. What then is your solution?

Way to conveniently leave out the fact that since they "ARE" government driven they leave out those nations opposed to the government, go TEAM!

Who wants to build as small business to stay small?? :dunno: Seems pretty dumb. And "once your reach a point", ahhhh Microsoft needs Apple, Nike needs Reebok, Exxon needs Shell. You never reach that point :) Can't think of a person who said oil companies artificially drove prices..they can't. If you're willing to pay it, it isn't artificial. Do they like to give BS excuses as to why they have to be high, yes. Same way Nike tries to tell the consumer "Air Jordans are worth 223 dollars" :rofl: That said, I can think of investors who have and a couple of petroleum exporting countries who most definitely manipulate the market :)

Lots of people. "Joe the Plumber" for one. Or did you think Joe has visions of his plumbing company becoming a large publicly traded corporation which services the entire world with plumbing services?

There is plenty of money to be made with a small business. You don't need to have the posiblity of becoming the next Bill Gates in order to be motivated.

Not sure if I understood your answer to my question about which country represents the best of socialism. Which one can you suggest has the successes based on socialism as you are describing?

I'm tyring to get a better context to the position you are advocating, it's still a bit abstract and theoretical for me without an example to illustrate the point.

coo-coo...coo-coo.....you would single handedly KILL entrepreneurship. Congratz :thumbup:

It is indeed very theoretical at this point. Up until now, most socialist countries have isolated themselves from the rest of the world (or were isolated by the rest of the world) which of course is not good for economic growth no matter what kind of economic system you have.

I suppose the system that most closely resembles what I like is that in Vietnam. It's not a great example though because they have only been around for a short time. It would be like judging the progress of the United States in 1825. But Vietnam has been experiencing 8-10% growth per year over the past 10 years. So they are doing quite well.

They are officially a socialist country, but they allow small business and private investment, but only to a certain level. All major industry is state run. Any foreign corporations that want to invest there must do so under a government umbrella corp, meaning that McDonalds can open up restaurants there, but officially those restaurants are state owned and McDonalds is only allowed to operate them under state guidlines.

The advantage of such a system for the average person is that because the government is able to collect large amounts of revenue from corporate profits and government run industry, the average person pays barely any taxes at all. And of course this is the exact same way that Venezuela operates its oil industry. Foreign companies can drill for oil there, but the oil wells are state owned.

I don't know much at all about Vietnam from an economic perspective so I went to the Economist to get some insight.

In my opinion however, from a political perspective, Communism is the bigger issue in terms of how well or not well an emerging economy can sustain itself using a combination of capitalism and socialism.

Huge inflation, uncertainty about political intervention, free press and widespread corruption in government including population facing services isn't a success in my definitions.

Do you have an example (country) of socialism working in a democratic political system?

http://www.economist.com/countries/V...ofile-Forecast

Forecast
Jun 16th 2008
From the Economist Intelligence Unit
Source: Country Forecast



Country Forecast
Vietnam


The content on this page is an extract from the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Country Forecast.




Outlook for 2008-09

The Communist Party will continue to reject demands for major political reform and will remain indifferent to calls for political pluralism in 2008-09.
Vietnam's leadership is plagued by endemic corruption and will need to prove that progress is being made in order to maintain its authority.
The government is set to face a number of challenging policy issues in 2008-09, most notably the need to control inflation and to reduce downward pressure on the currency.
The Economist Intelligence Unit has revised downwards its real GDP growth forecast to 6.9% in 2008, from 7.3% previously, owing to lower credit expansion and dampened consumption growth.
We forecast that inflation will average 23.3% this year before dropping back to an average of 12% in 2009.
The dong is set to depreciate slightly in 2008 on an annual average basis to reach D17,440:US$1 at the end of the period. The dong will remain volatile in 2008-09.
Owing to the large deficit on the merchandise trade account in 2008-09, the current account will remain in negative territory, with the deficit standing at the equivalent of 9.2% of GDP in 2008.

Monthly review

Two reporters were arrested in May and charged with“abusing their position and power while discharging public duty”, which has raised doubts about the government’s tolerance for criticism.
The National Assembly (the legislature) has approved a government proposal to expand the capital, Hanoi.
On June 10th the State Bank of Vietnam (the central bank) raised the base interest rate to 14%, from 12% previously.
The government has made reducing inflation its number one priority.
The government recently limited exports of rice, but buoyed by a strong harvest, has now announced a relaxation of the restrictions.
Consumer prices rose by 25.2% year on year in May. The most immediate cause of the increase was a 42.4% rise in the price of food and foodstuffs in the same period, which in turn was driven by a 67.8% jump in food prices.
The tightening of bank credit has punctured the real estate bubble.
The Vietnam Index of stock prices fell on every day of trading in May and as of June 3rd stood at 401, far below the high of 1,170 that it hit in March 2007.

December 19th Economic Data Report

http://www.economist.com/countries/V...conomic%20Data

Reading an analysis of a communist country in the Economist would be like reading an analysis of a capitalist country written by Fidel Castro. They are absolutely bais and will give you the impression that every socialist country is a dictatorship with no freedom. That has always been the propoganda argument against socialism. This myth that you cannot have socialism and democracy.

The reality is that the dozen or so times a socialist/communist government has been elected in a democratic country, there has always been intervention by the United States or Britain to overthrow the new government, assassinate their leaders, and install a capitalist government in its place. Since 1950 this has happened in Iran, Guatamala, Chile, Brazil, Congo, and I'm sure a few others I cannot think of at the moment (it's 3am).

The most recent example of a socialist government being elected in a democratic country is Venezuela, the subject of this thread. Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998. And in 2002, there was a US supported coup against him in which he was kidnapped and almost murdered. Since then, there have been numerous assassination attempts against him, and in his fear of being assassinated or overthrown, he has managed to turn his country into a police state.

So no, I cannot name a good example of a communist democracy for you because one has never been allowed exist for more than a couple of years. It's a terrible dilemna for a new government. If you keep the country open and free, you will be overthrown for sure. And if you clamp down and increase security and military to protect the new government, you will be accused of moving towards a police state and a dictatorship. It's a no-win situation.

Eric,

Thanks for your opinions - I guess the bottom line for me is that there is no successful case for socialism.

Viva USA!

In deed :thumbup:

There have been successful cases for socialism, just not the exact model that I would prefer. For example, China has had great success with their model of allowing foreign investment in a communist country. But their system is more communist than I would like. I prefer a bit more capitalism than they allow. Sweden is an example of a much smaller country that has had great success with a mixed socialist and capitalist system. But they do allow private corporations to operate independent of the government, even though there are strict regulations.

The United States would greatly benefit from such a system. Most jobs are created by small business, i.e. "Main Street", which would continue to exist. But all the natural resources in this country would become property of the people rather than property of the few elite. Everyone would benefit from the profits made from the vast natural resources we have, which is probably more than any other country in the world. In such a system, the average person would probably not have to pay a single dime in taxes ever. In fact, we would probably all receive dividend checks from the government as the people of Alaska do. The government would have plenty of revenue from which to operate from all of the nationalized industry.