Bolivia nationalizes natural gas industry

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You can apologise at your leisure.

But I won't.

The shares were put in trust upon privatisation of the oil and gas industry. A trust is not Morales private pond.

The rest of Colon's link.

The move would immediately give the government control over a large, but minority block of shares in three energy companies. The shares are worth an estimated $1.5 billion, according to Andres Soliz, Bolivia's hydrocarbons minister.

Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said attempts to negotiate with the financial institutions had been unsuccessful and the government was forced to issue a decree demanding the shares.

"Nobody is going to stop the nationalization, no external force, and much less any conservative internal force that has tried to block this," Garcia Linera said after signing the decree.

Garcia Linera was apparently referring to a company official who said last week that the law would not allow the government to take the shares without paying compensation.

The three local energy companies involved are Andina SA, a subsidiary of the Spanish-Argentine Repsol YPF; Chaco SA, a unit of Britain's BG Group PLC and BP PLC, and Transredes SA, of British-Dutch owned Shell Corp.

All three were once Bolivian state-run companies that were privatized in the 1990s. Foreign shareholders took majority control, while a little less than half the shares of each were put in a trust for the Bolivian people. The trust is used to pay a pension to all Bolivians over 65.

The government insists it will continue to pay the pension, but said it will also use the funds to boost its cash-strapped state energy company.

On May 1, President Evo Morales ordered the takeover of his country's 53 foreign-owned natural gas installations, sending white-helmeted military police with semiautomatic rifles to guard the continent's second-largest gas reserves.

He gave the companies six months to negotiate new contracts or leave.

Speaking Monday to the European Parliament, Morales said that foreign companies could profit from their investments in the country — but that the state would control the oil and gas resources.

Profit?!



And it points out that the gov't isn't taking guardianship of the shares, they are taking the shares. They 'promise' to pay the pensions.

How much does that mean when the economy goes down the crapper?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The new decree also enables the Bolivian government to retake control of Bolivia's partially privatized companies Chaco, Andina and Transredes. Previously, private investors held a 50 percent stake in the companies, with the remaining shares held by a state entity (FCC) managed by pension funds

http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/reports/reports/050806/bolivia.htm

You need any more proof of what the FCC is?

Hell, it's not even the CPP. It doesn't even look as though it's funded by its beneficiaries. Who the **** is Morales stealing from?

The people.

He's about to piss it all away on a whim.

The worst form of theft is a government that ****s up royally, as you continue to want to point out with your references to US SocSec.

[notyoueither]

How exactly is any energy company, state owned or otherwise, cash strapped with energy priced as it is?

Incompetence?

Need to steal to make it up?

[KrazyHorse]

the shares were 100% government owned. Then the government sold 50% to foreigners. Then the government put the other 50% in a trust. Now the government is taking back the 50% from the trust and nationalising the other 50%

If you want to complain about the government stealing from somebody, the nationalisation is your best bet. The trust wasn't even ****ing funded by contributor payments. It was directly funded by the government through taxes etc.

This isn't the ****ing government nationalising the CPP; it's the government "nationalising" the ****ing welfare plan.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The people.

He's about to piss it all away on a whim.

The worst form of theft is a government that ****s up royally, as you continue to want to point out with your references to US SocSec.

And how many times do I have to tell you that I don't think it was a smart move?

But it's not ****ing theft. It's much less theft than US SS since it's not a user-contributed plan. It's the government changing its mind on a promise a previous government made about what to do with national assets.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


the shares were 100% government owned.

Bull****!


Trust does not mean govt owned.

Why would they need to demand their own property?

It's pretty clear.

The trust is demanding compensation so they can continue to discharge their obligation.

The govt of the day is saying FU, give it to us!

The current govt does not own trusts set up by prior governments. They can take it, just like they can take anything they want by fiat, but it's still theft.

[KrazyHorse]

Looks like the only ones who have real legal cause to complain about the pension deal are the finance companies who have had their contracts broken and who aren't going to be making big fat commissions off their management any more.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And how many times do I have to tell you that I don't think it was a smart move?

But it's not ****ing theft. It's much less theft than US SS since it's not a user-contributed plan. It's the government changing its mind on a promise a previous government made about what to do with national assets.

It's theft of assets from a non government organization, just like they are stealing the assets of private organisations.

Theft is theft.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Looks like the only ones who have real legal cause to complain about the pension deal are the finance companies who have had their contracts broken and who aren't going to be making big fat commissions off their management any more.

And anyone over 65 or who may age to over 65 in Bolivia.

[Drake Tungsten]

is the US federal gov't stealing too?

Yes...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not at all. The US federal gov't runs the public pension plan. It "invests" the money in loans to itself, which provide a RoI much lower than would be provided by any reasonable investment strategy, and which allow the gov't to get cheap loans. So if Morales manages to provide a RoI of greater than 2%, and he's stealing, is the US federal gov't stealing too?

Social Security is not allowed to invest to in anything else, by statute. Its been suggested that it do so, with resulting controversy. Investing it as a block would create a VERY powerful institutional investor, with all the temptations to use it to advance particular interests (can anyone say ethanol?) that govts are subject to. Giving each individual control of his "piece" has built in conflicts with the social insurance nature of the fund.

So the only question is does the SS fund get the same return on US Treas Bonds that any other investor in same gets.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman
Guardian comment

More then likely this has an entirely social origin. Number one Chad is in Africa and no one gives a **** about Africa. Number two, at least in the US, the media showed pictures of some very white looking Bolivians who complained about Morales' expropriations in excellent English. Number three NPR has had several recent articles on Chad, which it has played throughout the day and at prime time, including the 1) the border war with Sudan 2) The dictatorship's backing down of quotas for money being spent on social programs 3) the dictatorship's stealing of the hydrocarbon fields after the international community refused to let them spend social program money on weapons (part of the deal which financed the creation of a pipeline through Nigeria and the development of the fields was that Chad's dictator had to spend a certain percentage to benifet his people and their were controls in place to insure that).

Lastly our friend in Chad is a complete ass clown. There is exactly one pipeline in and out of Chad. It is controlled by the IMF and a consorteum of countries who financed this deal; the same people the ass clown just tried to screw over. How does this clown think he's going to sell his stolen goods thus raising money to buy weapons (to keep his military dictatorship going)? He'd hgave been wiser just to spend the money on education and roads like he'd earlier promised.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Social Security is not allowed to invest to in anything else, by statute. Its been suggested that it do so, with resulting controversy. Investing it as a block would create a VERY powerful institutional investor, with all the temptations to use it to advance particular interests (can anyone say ethanol?) that govts are subject to.

Then make it independent like the central bank is independent. The single largest pension fund in the US is the California Public Employee Retirement Group (CALPERG) which is a 100% government owned entity. Dispit it's size and financial power the state has laws which makes it virtually impossible for politicians to influence CALPERG in any way. It is independent. Of course the retires who are invested in CALPERG can influence things since they're individual investors and this has resulted in some limited left wing activism but the fact remains it is "share holders" who are doing that and not politicians.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Social Security is not allowed to invest to in anything else, by statute. Its been suggested that it do so, with resulting controversy. Investing it as a block would create a VERY powerful institutional investor, with all the temptations to use it to advance particular interests (can anyone say ethanol?) that govts are subject to. Giving each individual control of his "piece" has built in conflicts with the social insurance nature of the fund.

So the only question is does the SS fund get the same return on US Treas Bonds that any other investor in same gets.

No, that isn't the only question. You can offer up all the excuses in the world, but it's amazing that the US federal gov't gets cheap loans out of SS while SS is going to be underfunded in the near future. The very fact that they're getting cheap loans is advancing a particular interest.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


More then likely this has an entirely social origin. Number one Chad is in Africa and no one gives a **** about Africa. Number two, at least in the US, the media showed pictures of some very white looking Bolivians who complained about Morales' expropriations in excellent English. Number three NPR has had several recent articles on Chad, which it has played throughout the day and at prime time, including the 1) the border war with Sudan 2) The dictatorship's backing down of quotas for money being spent on social programs 3) the dictatorship's stealing of the hydrocarbon fields after the international community refused to let them spend social program money on weapons (part of the deal which financed the creation of a pipeline through Nigeria and the development of the fields was that Chad's dictator had to spend a certain percentage to benifet his people and their were controls in place to insure that).

Lastly our friend in Chad is a complete ass clown. There is exactly one pipeline in and out of Chad. It is controlled by the IMF and a consorteum of countries who financed this deal; the same people the ass clown just tried to screw over. How does this clown think he's going to sell his stolen goods thus raising money to buy weapons (to keep his military dictatorship going)? He'd hgave been wiser just to spend the money on education and roads like he'd earlier promised.

I don't know too much about Chad, but according to the Beeb and a couple of other news agencies, external observers have called the recent elections mainly free and fair (despite an opposition boycott, there was over 60% participation).