Bolivia Nationalizing Oil & Gas Resources!

Well, this depends on whoever makes the law. Laws aren't always just.

Why can't you have a regulated state owned oil industry or worker collectives not owned by the state, but by workers like in Argentina?

Why is that?

 

Laws can be unjust, but arbitrarily changing laws tends to destroy confidence in them, which has serious repercussions. There is a price to pay for asset theft (or "expropriation").

Can have? You can have anything. I don't want state owned assets. State ownership of economic assets is a bad thing, not just in economics textbooks but in practice. Collectives can own whatever they want, but they must build or acquire those assets themselves. Capitalist society coexists happily with all kinds of collectives. However, Argentinian collectives which steal assets built with other people's debt and equity and then claim they run them more efficiently are not fooling anyone, at least not anyone who understands economics.

Property is theft? Wait until you try forcing people to hand over their property to the collective - you'll see who most people think is doing the theft.

Anarchy is collectivism under a different name. Explain to me which committee decides how much, and what kind of steel will be produced by one particular Ohio steel mill in 2007, where and how it will be shipped, and how the correct inputs will be acquired. Explain how you will do that with ad hoc anarchist committees and no government. You can't. Explain to me where you draw the line between private property and productive assets. Explain how you prevent the voluntary exchange of goods and services from allowing anyone to accumulate wealth. You can't.

 

If you never change them, than the laws will never be just.

Yes I can, if I want. lol

Private ownership of natural resources is a bad thing.

They are running them pretty well, that is why the owners are back trying to reclaim their assets after they abandoned them.

 

If you differentiate between private property and personal property, it will make sense to you.

It sounds insane now, but capitalism critics back during feudalism where just like you.

 

it works like this: cuba has a lot of knowledge and a well developed health-care instituition compared to Bolivia and Bolivia has oil which helps the cuban economy. they help each other by the exchange the oil for the health care

 

But there are means to change laws in a democracy.

That would explain the spectacular success of communism then.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this. It is easy to run a factory as a collective if you steal the assets and refuse to pay the debts. For example, if you buy a car and offer taxi services, you will have to make car payments. If some anarchist steals your car and offers the same taxi services, he can either a) offer lower prices or b) earn more. This is not because anarchy is a viable economic model. If you break into someone's house and take it over, you'll pay no rent, and the guy who had a mortgage on it loses out. Does this prove that anarchy is a better system for providing housing, since it is "free"?

Strangely enough, the anarchist collectives are finding it hard to borrow money to finance the operation and expansion of their "collectives". For some reason banks don't seem to want to lend to people who consider asset theft a key part of their business model.

The difference is arbitrary.

Communism sounded insane, and it turns out that it was insane.

Bolivia doesn't have much oil, they have gas. Gas is cheapest to ship by pipeline, so it would be wasteful to ship it to Cuba. Ultimately, Bolivia can sell its gas for cash and pay cash for whatever health care they want. The barter arrangement is just a stupid political ploy. Ultimately, the Bolivia-Cuba relationship will amount to nothing.

 

The times they are a'changin'...again. You right-wing fucks!

 

There are two economies in China, the state owned industries and the privately owned industries. Which ones do you thing are leading the boom and which ones still depend on state subsidies? Which ones are attracting billions in foreign investment? You guessed it, free enterprise is what is transforming China.

Let me put it another way. China's income per capita is $1,687. Taiwan's is $14,566. The economic track record of communism is a disgrace.

I'm not sure what the implications of this are supposed to be. Russia hasn't found a better economic model. Other eastern european countries have thrown open their doors to foreign investment and trade, and have liberal democratic societies. What's the result? Estonia, for example (formerly part of the USSR), has almost double the per capita income of Russia. Last year it grew about 50% faster than Russia, despite Russia benefitting from an oil/commodity boom and Estonia being an importer of oil and commodities.

So what does that mean? The totalitarian political aspects of communism are their real strengths? I have no idea what your message is.

Too bad for them. And make it 1.5 billion.

Again, what is the message? Some countries are experimenting with economic and political systems which are proven disasters?

Not really - there is nothing new about left wing sypathies for authoritarian regimes.

 

Bill Gates said it best, China is capitalism at an amazing pace.

 

May 13, 2006 - 6:59 PM

Tensions ease in Brazil-Bolivia energy dispute






By Jason Webb and William Schomberg

VIENNA (Reuters) - The leaders of Brazil and Bolivia on Saturday toned down a row over Bolivia's nationalisation of its energy sector which has exposed deep rifts in Latin America where the radical left is on the rise.

"There was a lot of smoke and not very much fire," said Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva after a breakfast meeting with Bolivia's new left-wing leader Evo Morales at a Vienna hotel to patch relations after the May 1 nationalisation.

Morales said planned increases in the price of Bolivian gas vital to Brazil's industry would be negotiated "rationally".

He said he looked forward to visiting Brazil. "I'm keen to watch some football with the Brazilian president," he said.

The dispute, together with other fights between Latin American nations which have long spoken of the need for more integration, overshadowed a summit between the region's leaders and their European Union counterparts in Vienna this week.

Brazil was enraged by Bolivia's decision to nationalise its energy sector -- including local operations of Brazilian state energy company Petrobras -- and to raise prices for Bolivian gas exports to Brazil and Argentina.

The rise of radical left-wing leaders such as Morales and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has worried many of their more market-friendly neighbours, particularly because of their large gas and oil reserves at a time of tight energy supplies.

Concerns have also spread beyond Latin America.

On Friday, Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Morales and Chavez not to act irresponsibly.

Moves this year by Russia to renegotiate its gas contracts with neighbouring Ukraine raised the prospect of energy-rich countries using natural resources for political purposes.

About the same time as Bolivia began scrapping with Brazil, Venezuela stormed out of an Andean group of countries because Peru, Colombia and Ecuador had angered Chavez by signing trade deals with his ideological rival, the United States.

That row, which sucked in Bolivia as Venezuela's ally, almost wrecked planned trade talks with the EU which the other Andean nations had hoped to set on course in Vienna.

Peru's President Alejandro Toledo said on Friday talks would go ahead even if Bolivia opted out.

INSULTS

Ideological differences have added venom to Latin America's bout of disputes.

Toledo said Chavez was taking his region's relations with Europe "hostage" and the Venezuelan, a self-declared revolutionary, has called Toledo a lackey of the United States.

The discord seems very distant from the high hopes for closer Latin American integration under Brazilian leadership three years ago in the early days of Lula's presidency.

At the time, the former metalworker was hailed as the hope of the moderate left in the region where freer markets have failed to make a big improvement in most people's lives.

But Lula, still poll favourite to win re-election on October 1, has been weakened by scandal and the bout with Morales was portrayed in Brazilian media as another serious loss of face.

Bolivia's actions particularly hurt because Lula and Morales, both ex-labour leaders, had seemed natural allies.

The dispute was embittered by Morales' accusations that Petrobras had acted illegally and that foreign firms had "pillaged" natural resources belonging to Bolivians.

For now, differences between South America's giant Brazil and Bolivia, its poorest country, have been smoothed over.

"We have to find the right balance for Brazil to be happy and for Bolivia to be happy," said Lula before criticising a tendency in the region to blame exploitation by other countries for domestic problems.

"Latin American presidents have to stop blaming the rest of the world for poverty," he added.

Morales said the media had created the impression of tension between the two countries and said Bolivia wanted to increase gas exports to Brazil and elsewhere.

Spanish government officials are also involved in discussions with Bolivia over the situation of Spanish oil and gas group Repsol, the next biggest foreign investor in Bolivia's energy sector after Petrobras.

(Additional reporting by Guido Nejamkis and Inae Riveras)