Venezuela's Chavez Signs Cheap Oil Deal with Massachusetts

[Az]

On a more serious note, this decision is rather silly.

[Sikander]

I like how he derides capitalism while at the same time being a member of a cartel which tries to keep the price of oil as high as possible.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Theben
He should make certain all of his people are cared for 1st...

By that rationale, then the US should make sure all of their people are cared for before they spend $200 Billion saving the Iraqis with democracy.

If foreign aid only came from countries who had all their people cared for, their would be no foreign aid.

Is this Chavez (and Delahunt) thumbing their noses at Bush foreign policy?

Of course.

Pretty clever, if you ask me. Oh, and as a bonus, some poor people get cheap heating oil.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Sikander
I like how he derides capitalism while at the same time being a member of a cartel which tries to keep the price of oil as high as possible.

You imply that there is some contradiction or hypocrisy in this.

I see none.

Having a centrally planned economy does not mean intentionally buying high and selling low.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


You imply that there is some contradiction or hypocrisy in this.

I see none.

Having a centrally planned economy does not mean intentionally buying high and selling low.

Typically the lefty criticism of capitalism is that it is in fact a series of cartels which stick it to consumers in order to enrich themtselves while keeping those who don't control the means of production in thrall.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
States are allowed to cut their own deals with foreign governments? How is that constitutional?

Happens all the time. Usually though you'll see states involved in boycotts. You saw this with respect to South African and apartheid where states boycotted South African goods, when the US persued a policy of engagement.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Yeah, but one of the few things that the Constitution says that states cannot do is conduct foreign policy. It sounds like a state has just negotiated a private arrangement with a sovereign foreign power. I'm really surprised that's allowed.

Not at all:

The fuel is being offered by Citgo Petroleum Corp., a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company which runs roughly 16,000 gas stations in the U.S.

This is a deal between:
1. Houston-based CITGO, a company with a hundred year history that was purchased by PDV in 1990. It employs 1000s of Americans and operates refineries in three states.
2. Citizens Energy Corp., a Boston based non-profit corporation founded in 1979 with a mission "to help make life's basic needs more accessible and affordable. Beginning in 1979 with oil-trading ventures in Latin America and Africa, Citizens has used revenues from commercial enterprises to channel millions of dollars into charitable programs in the U.S. and abroad."

The AP article is at best misleading and likely false. They claim that "Venezuelan Officials" are signing the deal, implying that a foreign government is signing the deal. This claim can only be technically correct if they first equate "officials" with "officers" of the corporation; 3 or 4 of the 15 officers appear to be Venezuelan nationals, including the CEO, but not the COO (Jerry THompson) or the VP-Supply & Distribution (Bill Hatch).

For a more informative article, try the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/11/20/thousands_in_mass_to_get_cheaper_oil/

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Sikander

Typically the lefty criticism of capitalism is that it is in fact a series of cartels which stick it to consumers in order to enrich themtselves while keeping those who don't control the means of production in thrall.

So you say.

Would it not be more correct to say that critics of capitalism claim that it is motivated almost exclusively by greed, and the benefits accrue to a small number of individuals working in their self-interest with little concern for the well-being of the population in general.

So giving back some of the recent windfall profits, (derived from price spikes that certainly appear related to the US occupation of Iraq) would make sense for Chavez, but not for the capitalist US companies who lied to Congress last week.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by JohnT
Do me a favor. Click on the above link, then click on "Oil Heat Program", then click on "Oil Dealers." See those smiling faces, those small business owners with their shiny new truck, the epitome of the American dream? See that list of over three hundred small business owners, people who sell already-subsidized heating oil to middle and low-income families?

Well, Bill Delahunt just ****ed them over to the tune of a 40% discount given to a Communist multi-national so he can make a statement about the Iraq war. Good going, Bill! That's "protecting your own"!

I'm somewhat suprised that no one has bothered to comment on this.

PS What's the lieing charge based on, TMV?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I'm not saying poverty isn't a problem in the USA, but it's alot worse in Venezuela then it is here. It's really rediculous given the plight of many people in his own country that Chavez is giving foreign aid to the richest country in the world, and in one of the richer states of that Country.

It's really rediculous that people can't fscking spell that word properly.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Happens all the time. Usually though you'll see states involved in boycotts. You saw this with respect to South African and apartheid where states boycotted South African goods, when the US persued a policy of engagement.

A boycott is unilateral; a deal is bilateral.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
A boycott is unilateral; a deal is bilateral.

And? It is still conducting foriegn policy.

[Kuciwalker]

Section. 10.

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

[Theben]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

By that rationale, then the US should make sure all of their people are cared for before they spend $200 Billion saving the Iraqis with democracy.

Considering the circumstances, that's would've been an exellent idea.

But Vermont's poor are just poor. And poor in a 1st world nation.

Venezuela's poor are really ****ing poor, and poor in the 3rd world sense.

Sticking it to Bush can be fun but 1) it's hardly needed, and 2) your own people will remember your grandstanding while they are still in poverty. Let's see, which would stick it to the capitalists more: A. a communist regime that uses it's sudden wealth badly or, B. a communist regime that provides for all it's people, in that they are all healthly, weathly, and well-educated?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm somewhat suprised that no one has bothered to comment on this.

PS What's the lieing charge based on, TMV?

JohnT's post was so misinformed that we did him the favor of ignoring it. (The fuel will still be delivered by Americans; Citizens Energy has been delivering fuel to needy families for many years, etc.)

The lying charge is that AP claims Venezuelan Officials are signing the deal. That is probably a lie. If you consider that to mean officials of the Venezuelan Government it is absolutely a lie. AP would likely defend themselves by saying they meant Venezuelan citizens who operate as officers of an American corporation. But it would still be a lie if the actual contract is signed by the American officers of CITGO. I can't find any info on who actually inked the deal for CITGO.