Chavez steals millions from foreign companies.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

I used to be rich. Now I'm going to be doing a little redistribution. (legally).

Was the break up that expensive?

[Arrian]

Maybe "coopted" is a better word, Kid. They took some of the less radical ideas, put them in (which I'm sure you will agree was a good thing), and in doing so reduced the potential support for the remaining (more radical) socialist/communist ideas.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

The Democrats took our ideas so they could be elected, otherwise we would have been elected. We lost in that way, but our ideas won out. I don't see any placation. I see that we won in a way and we still have more to go.

Wow. That's a remarkable bit of news.

Not ONLY did the Dems take Red views, but they must have categorically been better politicians, more charasmatic, and better able to get their ("your") message out than ALL of the Commie candidates, because NONE of them ever got elected.

It's either buy into the fantasy above, or acknowledge that (as usual) Kid's not coming clean with the full story (as nicely alluded to by Brother Arrian!)

-=Vel=-

[Dinner]

I don't believe most foreign investment comes in the form of building extractive industries. Instead there is a lot of money from mutual funds, stock markets, and banks looking for a decent return on money they have sitting around. They'll loan that capital to lots of small companies looking to expand or even to start ups if the idea is good enough.

Then you have other types of companies like manufacturers who are looking for lower wages of less currency risk, retailers (Walmart & Costco love building their stores in foreign countries), utility companies, services companies, just about everything you can think of. They all provide jobs, pay taxes, and a lot of them do build things to develop countries. This is a good thing and the countries which get the most investment typically develop the quickest while those who get the least tend to stagnate or even decline.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Not ONLY did the Dems take Red views, but they must have categorically been better politicians, more charasmatic, and better able to get their ("your") message out than ALL of the Commie candidates, because NONE of them ever got elected.

I'm not really impressed.

[Velociryx]

Kidicious. The unwavering rock of absurdities that all right minded folk must, eventually, break themselves against.

I love you man!

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

CapCom V, DIE HARD, WITH A VENGEANCE!



-Arrian

[Sandman]

Even in the case of big oil money, there's still a need for supporting infrastructure. Roads, electiricty, running water at the job site, and it'd be easy enough for governments to make sure that there was some (or even a considerable) spillover effect into the communities surrounding such operations, simply by mandating it as a part of the contract. Just a price of doing business there.

Righty. Billions and billions of dollars worth of oil under their feet, and they should settle for 'considerable spillover'. And only in nearby communities.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Maybe "coopted" is a better word, Kid. They took some of the less radical ideas, put them in (which I'm sure you will agree was a good thing), and in doing so reduced the potential support for the remaining (more radical) socialist/communist ideas.

-Arrian

A lot of those people are progressives, so I wouldn't call them placated either.

[Arrian]

Righty. Billions and billions of dollars worth of oil under their feet, and they should settle for 'considerable spillover'. And only in nearby communities.

If they have the ability to exploit these billions w/o foreign help, there is no need to cut any deals. The rub here is twofold: do they now have the ability to exploit their wealth w/o foreign capital/expertise (maybe they do) and furthermore is it ethical to make deals and then reneg on them later?

The first question is simple. If they need foreign help to extract & export that oil, then the foreigners are gonna want (and deserve) a cut. The size of the cut is, of course, debateable.

The second question is, of course, not simple b/c it raises the question of the oil companies' conduct and whether the original deals were ethical in the first place.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
CapCom V, DIE HARD, WITH A VENGEANCE!



-Arrian

I think it's IX but whose counting.

[Velociryx]

Thanks for the assist, Arrian.

And yes, Sandman....that's why it's called B U S I N E S S.

I don't think it's unfair for someone to ask for something in return for the money you're wanting them to pour into a project.

Maybe you'd prefer they just give you the money for free, but sadly, it does not generally work that way.

My example but was one of an infinite number of possibilities. If you want to play the game where I am the foriegn investor and you're Ven., cool....if you don't like my original offer, we can play "let's make a deal." What did you have in mind?

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

A lot of those people are progressives, so I wouldn't call them placated either.

Placate:

"To allay the anger of, esp. by yielding concessions; appease."

Back in the bad old days of the mid-19th to early 20th century, the anger was bad enough to raise the very real possibility of revolution... or at least armed conflict. There was blood spilt.

In the past 50 years? Not so. Thus, enough anger was allayed to achieve relative stability.

You're mad. Ok, I get it. Are you, together with thousands of others, going to organize protests, general strikes, and the like? If not, you're placated enough for our purposes

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman

Righty. Billions and billions of dollars worth of oil under their feet, and they should settle for 'considerable spillover'. And only in nearby communities.

You do know that Venezuela was already charging a tax of something like 80% of all gross oil revenue (not just profits), right? There's a 30% royality right off the top then a 50% tax on all gross revenues for foreign oil companies' operations in the country. The state oil monopoly of course does not have to pay an 80% tax on gross revenue.

Yep, those evil oil companies just aren't paying their fair share. May I humblely suggest that the problems lie with the failures of the Venezuelan government both past and present?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
In the past 50 years? Not so. Thus, enough anger was allayed to achieve relative stability.

Well the economy has been relatively good. Just wait until that changes. Even during the Depression and New Deal communism was still becoming more popular.