HA HA! Take that Chavez!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
The problem I see with it is that it's a very vague standard. Where is the line between a fair deal and an exploitative one? I don't think either of us has the answer.

-Arrian

There are deals and there are deals. It would be one thing if you contracted with Mugabe to build a road through Zimbabwe and charged a "fair" price (materials, good pay for labor, and a small but fair profit). It's another thing to go to a country and basically hold them over the barrel. When the IMF and World Bank were telling debt ridden countries that they either had to sell off everything they owned or they wouldn't be allowed to refinance their debt, they were forced to sell off their patrimony for pennies on the dollar. They had to sell and companies knew it and took advantage of the situation. Of course, the companies have a legal responsibility to drive the hardest bargain they can, but one shouldn't weep for them when they get burned after screwing someone over.

This happened in Bolivia when the IMF tried to force them to sell off the water system. The company bought i on the cheap, and immediately began shutting down service and raising rates. The people revolted, two governments fell, the deal was scrapped, and Morales was elected. Bolivia

[DinoDoc]

What's a fair profit to a commie?

[Arrian]

Obviously everyone has their own concept of what "fair profit" means.

Anyway, thanks for the answer, Che.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Obviously everyone has their own concept of what "fair profit" means.

Do you?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I've actually never heard that. The state run oil company did do those things, and that's why a lot of them got sacked and why so many Venezuelans are now in exile in Alberta.

and a lot of people that did absolutely nothing wrong got sacked as well.


As for whether the oil companies participated in the coup, I think that that is more likely to be part of some person's wacky conspiracy theory than any current day reality. Could it happen? Sure but I am just thinking of all the checks and balances required to even write any cheque in a big company and the fact that all the biggies would have rules against such things.

Seriously though for such a thing to go through any regular decision chain at a super-big oil company is unthinkable. So for it to happen, it would have to be super quiet (so NOT authorized by the Board of directors for example). That would leave someone like a ceo or president initiating coup participation on his own?? Why would any such person risk their position at all ion such a thing?

Might Venezuelans employed by a western oil conmpany participate in a coup attempt? Sure. IN fact, faced with losing their jobs and status they might be likely candidates . . . but that doesn't mean the oil company had anything to do with it

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
and a lot of people that did absolutely nothing wrong got sacked as well.

Or so they claim. They might even believe it. I have noticed that a lot of people are extremely irrational about Latin American leftists. A lot of people down here in Miami seemed to earnestly believe that Elian Gonzalez was going to be killed by Castro if he went back to Cuba.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Do you?

I don't--Businesses do not think in those terms. A possible "rate of return" is not seen as fair or unfair. ITs either acceptable or unacceptable.

To simplify a LOT, a given company might , at current interest rates and market conditions require a minimum of say 18% projected rate of return IN order to invest 1 million in an oil well in Texas. This rate of return is risk adjusted since they never KNOW so that Texas well might have ( the math wouldn't work out in this examplebut is to give the idea)

a 0.1% chance of returning a 300% return
a 0.5% chance of a return 200%+
a 1% chance of a return 100% +
a 10% chance or returns from 50-99%
a 30% chance of returns of 0-49%
a 58% chance of losing money

Since they purchase the lease on the well PRIOR to knowing, what is a fair price. This example is actually favorable since in conventional oil you are usually dealing with way less than a 50% chance of success.

IN my example, if the oil company drills, either O or 300% is "fair" to me (and the government gets royalties of 15-40% of production)


OH ya and the above was only talking about the drilling risk-- Usually this gets blended in with cost risk, political risk, weather risk, and pretty much any risk you care to name and it gets expressed as the "expected" number and usually also with the p10 and p90 numbers (sometime p01 and p99 as well) so people have a sense of the reasonably probable outcomes.


So what is a fair profit? Danged if I know

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
So what is a fair profit? Danged if I know

Maybe you think it is 60 billion dollars a year or something. Is that a fair statement?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Do you?

In the abstract, yes.

But I lack enough information to decide what's "fair" (a better word would be reasonable) in, well, pretty much every real-world case. I'm not a whiz at math. I'm not an executive (despite that word being in my job title, I execute diddly squat). I don't go to meetings wherein people propose investments or price structures.

Flubber is far, far, far more likely to understand what is "fair" in his industry than I am in mine (and besides, my industry is probably even more hated than his, so it doesn't really matter what I claim is fair ).

I think making a profit is fine. I'd prefer that said profit is made by producing a good product, or producing a product in a particularly efficient manner, as opposed to paying your workforce a pittance*, paying no taxes and not bothering with niceties such as environmental controls.

* - what consitutes a pittance, IMO, varies from place to place. A pittance in CT might be a small fortune in Venezuela. Context matters.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


In the abstract, yes.

But I lack enough information to decide what's "fair" (a better word would be reasonable) in, well, pretty much every real-world case.

The details ought to tell you something. As Flubber states the oil companies own or control knowledge which is usefull to society (nations), and in a capitalist system they are paid an incentive (profit) for sharing that information. In fact, that's really mostly what they get paid for. Because let's face it, if it's just work, society can do it themselves. It's this incentive to get corporations and rich individuals to contribute to society that I see as unfair.

[Arrian]

There are justifications for those incentives, as you've no doubt heard.

Now it's possible that one could argue that there should be different incentives (prestige instead of money, for instance). Communists do, in fact, argue such things, IIRC. Whether or not you think that would work pretty much depends on your take on human nature.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
There are justifications for those incentives, as you've no doubt heard.

I don't disagree with compensation, but when you delibrately set up a system where individuals have control over society like that I don't see any justification for that.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Arrian

Now it's possible that one could argue that there should be different incentives (prestige instead of money, for instance). Communists do, in fact, argue such things, IIRC. Whether or not you think that would work pretty much depends on your take on human nature.

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't give a ****. I just say Exxon's got enough ****ing money. So if they have less now good. I don't hate them. I just want some money.

[Kidlicious]

That too.

[Kuciwalker]

DirtyMartini: Exactly. Kid is the perfect example of why communism is doomed.