HA HA! Take that Chavez!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Exxon's money is dripping with blood, so that's not stealing.

Oooh the rhetoric!!!

Originally posted by Kidicious

They haven't earned ****. In fact, they don't even report it as earned income on their tax return. It's unearned income.

I'll confess my ignorance of US tax laws but their 2006 annual report shows them paying income taxes of 27 billion dollars (probably a worldwide number and subject to all sorts of caveats). I have no idea how that gets reported on their tax return .

Is earned and unearned income treated very differently?I am simply wondering why that distiction is so important to you

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Oh, you work for Exxon. I didn't know that. Mkay.

Actually I don't.

Since lawyers had not been mentioned by anyone previously and you specifically picked the lawyer profession, I took your comment as at least partially aimed at me. (otherwise you would pick a more common oil profession like engineer).

I apologize if I am incorrect onn that but would you feel any less a dirty whore if you were a lawyer for Chevron?

I wouldn't think that the identity of the megabillion oil corporation would matter to you.

[Wezil]

So long as you don't work for Petrocan I can forgive you for being a dirty whore Flubber.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I'll confess my ignorance of US tax laws but their 2006 annual report shows them paying income taxes of 27 billion dollars (probably a worldwide number and subject to all sorts of caveats). I have no idea how that gets reported on their tax return .

Is earned and unearned income treated very differently?I am simply wondering why that distiction is so important to you

You don't seem to understand the difference between earned and unearned income. I was just pointing out that the US govt does. Maybe that will help something get into that head of yours.

The thing is it's not uncommon to consider such income as fair game for govt taxation. I don't see the big difference between that and nationalization. I suppose you do, but that doesn't really matter either. I mean, all I can say is I don't see anything wrong with taking money from a big oil company like Exxon. I propose we take it all. I would of course feel bad from taking money from a hard working person. That doesn't mean I hate people because they have more than me. I just understand the difference between working for money and just having it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Actually I don't.

Since lawyers had not been mentioned by anyone previously and you specifically picked the lawyer profession, I took your comment as at least partially aimed at me. (otherwise you would pick a more common oil profession like engineer).

I apologize if I am incorrect onn that but would you feel any less a dirty whore if you were a lawyer for Chevron?

I wouldn't think that the identity of the megabillion oil corporation would matter to you.

I don't really believe the way you describe your roll at the oil company you work for. To me a lawyer for an oil company is bad news. I would not like to be around such a person. It's not really you personally. But I do feel more comfortable around lower class people.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by onodera

It sounds more like when your brother sells the family car without family consent for half its price. If he then runs away with the money, don't you want your car back?

Taking it back out of the brother car thing. If a company does certain deals with a leader of a country which many many people in the country do not agree with . .

Two comments

1. Who exactly is supposed to determine the legitimacy of a government to deal with the assets of a company. After teh 'revolution' the people may determine that the US gave away the shop to corporations. But right now the government of the US is the only one available to deal with. So who are companies supposed to contract with to do business? Is it better that private companies do not do business in certain countries at all and if so, who compiles the list.


2. If a government wants to redress inequities in what it receives for natural resources there are many incremental steps that are routinely used such as increasing taxes or royalty rates. Heck even Alberta is doing this and renegotiating certain contracts it reached with oil companies. The oil companies may complain but this methodology is far more mainstream and accepted and is far less offensive than outright expropriation.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't really believe the way you describe your roll at the oil company you work for. .

I have no reason to lie-- Besides I haven't really said that much

Originally posted by Kidicious

To me a lawyer for an oil company is bad news.

Why ?? The legal function is often about ensuring compliance with applicable laws, regulations etc.

Originally posted by Kidicious


I would not like to be around such a person.

THat shows incredible narrow-mindedness. Besides you might be around lawyers all the time. Ya know, we go to the supermarket, macdonalds, the pub and are even known to drink beer as a change from our usual bottle of dom perignon a day

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's not really you personally. But I do feel more comfortable around lower class people.

It couldn't be personal as we have never met but I have faced both the lawyer stereotype and the oil company stereotype before ( combine them to become an arrogant ******* that rapes the environment). In some ways it is no better than racial stereotyping and equally inaccurate

Oh and I laugh because you seem to hit me with some sort of separate "upper-class" stereotype while as a native of Newfoundland I have all my life faced the stereotype of being essentially an unsophisticated lout due to my accent and place of origin.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Darius871
What sorts of assets would the Venezuelan government have that are even subject to British and Dutch jurisdiction, I wonder? Just some liquid accounts?

Read the article.

I did, and read it again. All I'm seeing is "$x in assets" repeated two or three times.

[snoopy369]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7235653.stm

Venezuela denies oil asset freeze

Venezuela took over the oil project as part of a nationalisation drive.
Venezuela's state-run oil firm has denied that US oil giant Exxon Mobil had won a court order to freeze up to $12bn (£6bn) of its assets.
PDVSA said that while it accepted that $300m in cash had been frozen, this was only a "transitory measure".

Exxon has been fighting for monetary compensation since Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez siezed its stake in heavy oil projects in the country last June.

Arbitration between the two firms is due later this year.

Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez accused Exxon of "judicial terrorism" but said the court actions "don't have any direct affect over our operations, over our assets".

An Exxon spokeswoman said the firm had no comment on Mr Ramirez's comments.

Apparently it includes cash presumably held in British banks... who knows what the rest is, perhaps property held with title in Britain (but then ignored)? Or perhaps the 'joint venture' with someone or another is technically stock in a British (or Dutch - Shell/RD) company?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I have no reason to lie-- Besides I haven't really said that much

Yea, I bet you know a lot of secrets.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

1. Who exactly is supposed to determine the legitimacy of a government to deal with the assets of a company. After teh 'revolution' the people may determine that the US gave away the shop to corporations. But right now the government of the US is the only one available to deal with. So who are companies supposed to contract with to do business? Is it better that private companies do not do business in certain countries at all and if so, who compiles the list.

Pathetic lawyer's trick question. Is it a proper democracy with a free vote? Tick box A or B.

2. If a government wants to redress inequities in what it receives for natural resources there are many incremental steps that are routinely used such as increasing taxes or royalty rates. Heck even Alberta is doing this and renegotiating certain contracts it reached with oil companies. The oil companies may complain but this methodology is far more mainstream and accepted and is far less offensive than outright expropriation.

You can't expropriate what is already yours.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Yea, I bet you know a lot of secrets.

If you are implying that I would know something nasty or bad or despicable-- Nope-- If such secrets existed they would not be confided to me-- They would choose one of the other lawyers (we have about 3 dozen total) that are higher up the chain.

My role in doing commercial agreements among oil companies do not tend to lead to any startling revelations

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Apparently it includes cash presumably held in British banks... who knows what the rest is, perhaps property held with title in Britain (but then ignored)?

I'm guessing that much of it is title in the disputed oilfields, which Venezuela will not now be able to sell off in Britain and the Netherlands. I'll further guess that Venezuela has no plans to sell them off, which is why the Venezuelan official is saying, "."

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

Mounting a military coup... Venezuela... why does Hugo come to mind?

Did I include all military coups in my statement? No I did not. Try again, Len.

There is a whole lotta assertion here, but no facts. Is there a way of comparing the deal Exxon got in Venezuela against a deal in some other country? I'm perfectly willing to accept that Exxon *may* have gotten a sweetheart deal from the corrupt pre-Chavez regime. I'm not going to assume it, however.

Are you denying that pre-Chavez the Venezuelan oil industry was set up to enrich a small minority of the population, whilst giving the majority of citizens no benefit at all. Do you deny that the "La Apertura" programs were privatization programs engineered by the same people with much the same aims? cf. Bolivia.

If so, I think you must be one of the very few people who deny that.

I rather suspect that any profit any oil company (correction: Western Oil Company) makes is awful in your eyes. Speaking of which...

Not at all. Money made through unethical actions and exploitation of tyrannical governments is somehow different, don't you think?

Clearly, this is why Chavez tried to take their money. Of course, Chavez's nationalized oil company won't harm the environment. Nu-uh, no sir.

Why are we supposed to feel sorry for Exxon again? I forgot where Chavez practices were killing people. Somehow that must have slipped my mind.

Ugh. They have appealed the judgment several times, keep losing, and keep appealing. They're going to run out of appeals, and they're going to pay... eventually. But I agree, it's not good behavior.

Don't you mean that it is sociopathic behaviour.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


If you are implying that I would know something nasty or bad or despicable-- Nope-- If such secrets existed they would not be confided to me-- They would choose one of the other lawyers (we have about 3 dozen total) that are higher up the chain.

My role in doing commercial agreements among oil companies do not tend to lead to any startling revelations

See that's how I know you are full of it. Everyone knows secrets about their job, stuff they don't want other people to know.