Bolivia Nationalizing Oil & Gas Resources!

Well it could just mean that those directly in gov't will do the most benefiting from these resources like what happens in other countries with nationalization.

Then you need to check out Chile,Brazil and Costa Rica. These Latin American countries haven't totally abandoned free-market oriented development. Even Venezuela isn't as Socialist as many assume. It's a very consumer oriented economy.

Example:

LINK

 

you are a real pessimist, aren't you?
today there are a lot of problems in that country due to a lot of poverty. the people overthere seem to think that neo-liberalism is the cause of that. so they have a socialist president now and they have founded a partnership with cuba and venezuela against america with their trade agreement.
it's a start and i hope it will grow so we will have a better alternative for asia or america

 

Well Chile used neo-liberalism too,and it has one of the better economies in Latin America. What's the difference between Chile's neo-liberalism and that tried by other Latin American countries?

 

give them a chance

if they dont invade others(militarily and/or economically), we should support them. if they fail, they'll learn from the failure and find a better way.

 

On the matter, i heard this


In a grand show celebrating May 1st, the day of the worker, the Bolivian government claims to have given the Bolivian people "the best May 1st gift they could have hoped for." Today, Evo "nationalized" Bolivia's gas reserves. They are not throwing out the transnationals but have sent the military out to guard all of the nation's gas fields (They have NOT been seized as some of the international press is reporting; their presence is merely symbolic). The new law transfers control of their transnational's actions (production, export, etc) to the bolivian state and the bolivian state gas company YFPB. Supreme Decree 28701 increases the amount of profits that belong to Bolivia to 82%, leaving 18% for the companies themselves. (Up until last year, it had been 82% for the companies, 18% for Boivia. As Alvaro, the VP said, "they And the state now gets to have a say over how much gets exported to what country and how much stays in Bolivia. Transnationals have 180 days to change their contracts in accordacne with the new law or they have to leave the country and their fields get transferred over toYFPB.

 

But Mr. Morales's step on Monday was the most assertive yet, and many industry observers feared such moves would scare away investors and jeopardize the region's economies.

"This isn't like Saudi Arabia, which over the years has developed a know-how to dominate the industry independently," said Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a consultancy in Washington that studies energy issues.

"When you cause problems for foreign investors, you cause problems for those who know how to create and develop the industry."

LINK
----------------------------------

We'll have to wait and see how this turns out.

Of course my suggestion whould be for the Bolivian gov't to seek out some free-market experts to show them how to go about putting in place free-market reforms the right way.

 

Morales is trying to serve two masters at the moment though, imperialism and the bolivian people, and at the end of the day, he cant do both

 

Property theft - what a refreshingly new idea. What could go wrong?

Soon they will be swimming in the same sea of prosperity as their brothers in Cuba.

 

You mean, expropriation.

 

they try to help each other out of their poverty, right? bolivia is the poorest country of south-america already

 

Any nation that thinks Cuba can help it get out of poverty is barking up the wrong tree.

 

but how about a nation that thinks its own vast amounts of gas can help itself?

 

You are acting as if nationalisation is some radical new idea that just might work. It is an old idea and it has a very bad track record. The oil industry has been state owned in Mexico for about 80 years. It has been state owned in Iran for two and a half decades. And of course in Russia, ALL natural resources were state owned between 1917 and 1991. Where are the benefits? Can you understand that countries can benefit from natural resources without state ownership?

Already Brazil has said they are cancelling plans to expand the gas pipeline from Bolivia. Why invest in a relationship with a country that tears up contracts? So we are already seeing the repercussions of this stupid policy.

It is amazing that people can think there is no price to pay for gunpoint asset grabs.

 

So private property is not theft, but public property is? explain your logic



What would you prefer, a public monopoly that you would have democratic control over or anarchic private property beyond your control?


I have nothing against personal property, but private ownership of the earth and it is resources is theft.

 

Neither is theft. If one takes from the other outside of the law, that is theft.

I would rather have a regulated oil industry than a state owned oil industry.

Its a great slogan, I agree, but in practice it is meaningless.

 

i'd rather say,

Any nation that thinks another nation can help it get out of poverty is barking on the wrong tree.

The truth is, they need each other. There's a big power that want to build a free trade zone. But how can both rich countries and poor countries benefit from it? So they're building a free trade zone of poor countries.

 

There's no reason they can't both benefit.

 

of course they can both benefit. i mean equally. no way.