HA HA! Take that Chavez!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

I was thinking more about land area (and resources) than population. Even so... China? Point being there are many undemocratic regimes in power around the world. We can all hope that their dwindle with time.

I'm pessimistic about that. Our own countries seem to be becoming more like China faster than China is becoming like us.

As to the rest... thanks for the answer, and while I generally agree (edit: actually, I think "agree entirely" is the way to say it), the problem is figuring out "what a reasonable legitimate government would've agreed to."

I'd interpret that extremely liberally. Like most things, it is possible to work out a more or less reasonable price by looking at similar exchanges. It's only the obvious ripoff deals (especially the ones secured by large bribes) that are a problem. There may be the occasional pretty stink deal that doesn't sink to the level of obvious corruption, and those I would be tempted to let slide.

Further... what about the case where a company makes a deal with an autocratic government that *is* reasonable, but of course the autocratic government doesn't share the spoils with its people, so there is a revolution + nationalization.

I'd be inclined to let this slide, since the company acted in good faith. If anyone is to be pursued for the missing funds, it's the autocrats. Again, assuming that the company dealt in good faith it will be much easier to deal with the new government than if they had been party to an obviously corrupt deal.

Sucks to be that company. I'm not arguing that Exxon is that company here, because I just don't know. It's theoretical. The only way to handle it, I guess, is to build in that risk factor into the deal in the first place, which would, in turn, risk making the deal "unreasonable!"

That's a good point. There's probably a lot of this actually going on in oil deals as well as some of the obvious malfeasance that goes on (especially in some of these African places). I'm guessing that in this sort of case, a company would be unreasonable if it continued to insist on the old deal rather than renegotiating a new and fairer deal that recognized the increased legitimacy of the new government (which incidentally reduced its own risk).

[Arrian]

I'm not saying that resources shouldn't be allocated efficiently, just that a certain group or class of people shouldn't be paid off for that.

Or take the loss if they make the wrong choice. Remember that part.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Or take the loss if they make the wrong choice. Remember that part.

-Arrian

It's not the losers that I'm talking about. It's the winners like Exxon. They are never going to lose.

[Patroklos]

For every Exxon there were a thousand who didn't make it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
For every Exxon there were a thousand who didn't make it.

And there's some who barely make it, who really don't earn that much. Again, not talking about them at all. Talking about companies like Exxon here.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

It's not the losers that I'm talking about. It's the winners like Exxon. They are never going to lose.

I'm sure they've lost money on projects. They just need to win more than they lose, and have.

The same would be true if they were government-run. The risk would be on the public, and the public would reap the rewards or failures.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Kid, that idea is so stupid it is retarded.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm sure they've lost money on projects. They just need to win more than they lose, and have.

So what if they have lost money on certain projects? What is that suppose to mean if anything?

The same would be true if they were government-run. The risk would be on the public, and the public would reap the rewards or failures.

-Arrian

It would be a success. Sure there would be a surplus of oil in some years, but that's not really a failure. You can't measure the success the same way that you measure Exxons success. You measure Exxons success my how much profit they make. That profit doesn't make society better off, except for taxes that we can collect for it. In fact, it may account for higher gas prices.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Kid, that idea is so stupid it is retarded.

I'm not stating ideas butthead. They are facts.

[Dinner]

Nope. Facts are firmly established truths with data/hard numbers behind them. You have yet to introduce any of those. So far you have just supposition and ideas. Retarded ideas.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Nope. Facts are firmly established truths with data/hard numbers behind them. You have yet to introduce any of those. So far you have just supposition and ideas. Retarded ideas.

I haven't proposed any ideas at all, except expropriation, but that's a given considering the context, so why do you STFU.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
Or take the loss if they make the wrong choice. Remember that part.

-Arrian

Just remember where that capital came from in the first place, the exploitation of labor. In the case of Exxon, which, IIRC, is one of the parts of Standard Oil, the reason there are a thousand failures for each Exxon is that Rockerfeller broke the law in destroying his rivals. It is a company built on ill gotten gains.

[Patroklos]

It would be a success. Sure there would be a surplus of oil in some years, but that's not really a failure. You can't measure the success the same way that you measure Exxons success. You measure Exxons success my how much profit they make. That profit doesn't make society better off, except for taxes that we can collect for it. In fact, it may account for higher gas prices.

Why is it despite the complete failure of nearly every entity that operates like that, you insist on pretending it is the optimal way to proceed.

Exxon delivers me a good product that I want at a reasonable price and does so better than anyone else. Please explain to me why giving my money to the government to do the same through taxes (plus I still have to pay for the end product) is any different than me giving it to Exxon?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Why is it despite the complete failure of nearly every entity that operates like that, you insist on pretending it is the optimal way to proceed.

Exxon delivers me a good product that I want at a reasonable price and does so better than anyone else. Please explain to me why giving my money to the government to do the same through taxes (plus I still have to pay for the end product) is any different than me giving it to Exxon?

You think Exxon is a success? Do you even buy gas, or are you always on your little boat.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian


I'm sure they've lost money on projects. They just need to win more than they lose, and have.



-Arrian

Absolutely-- Every oil company has some spectacular failures