BF2S Forums Venezuela has all the oil

eleven bravo wrote:

a lot of people would argue that Europe isnt really socialist either

What is it then? It's certainly not Communist, and it's not Capitalist (although we have many Capitalist elements to our economies).

Braddock wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

a lot of people would argue that Europe isnt really socialist either

What is it then? It's certainly not Communist, and it's not Capitalist (although we have many Capitalist elements to our economies).

We have what is known as a mixed economy, just the same as the US but theirs errs more strongly on the side of capitalism.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-25 14:02:09)

Braddock wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Every nation acts according to its own perceived interests. Not every other nation in the world is going to necessarily agree with those interests. It's not a popularity contest--it's OK to disagree with another country's policies and actions.

Recognizing that countries act according to their interests and not your interests (if you're from another country) is a step towards adulthood, I suppose.

It's not about "cleaning our own house" at all. It's about recognizing that our issues with Venezuela have fucking zero to do with oil and everything to do with Chavez's policies and the actions he takes in line with what he perceives to be his nation's interests.

We already established that it isn't about oil. So what is it about then, him being a socialist pig and a nutter? Okay I agree, however, we've been a tad socialistic as of late too. Maybe not to the extreme of out-right nationalizing entire markets or industries, but we're leaning in that direction more and more.

So Chavez can ruin business in his country by nationalizing everything, and we can ruin ours with unserviceable debt. I'm waiting to hear what is so important about Venezuela that is in 'our' best interest.

Can I ask a question? Why do so many Americans hate Socialists and Socialism even when it's outside of the United States? It really seems like you've been brainwashed to believe that Socialism is evil, or even contagious! The EU is by and large socialist and we've got along okay since that whole Hitler hiccup. Is the American Capitalist dream really that paranoid that it has to try and stamp out Socialism wherever possible?

Socialism takes trading partners off the table. Trade is the source of wealth.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

We already established that it isn't about oil. So what is it about then, him being a socialist pig and a nutter? Okay I agree, however, we've been a tad socialistic as of late too. Maybe not to the extreme of out-right nationalizing entire markets or industries, but we're leaning in that direction more and more.

So Chavez can ruin business in his country by nationalizing everything, and we can ruin ours with unserviceable debt. I'm waiting to hear what is so important about Venezuela that is in 'our' best interest.

Can I ask a question? Why do so many Americans hate Socialists and Socialism even when it's outside of the United States? It really seems like you've been brainwashed to believe that Socialism is evil, or even contagious! The EU is by and large socialist and we've got along okay since that whole Hitler hiccup. Is the American Capitalist dream really that paranoid that it has to try and stamp out Socialism wherever possible?

Socialism takes trading partners off the table. Trade is the source of wealth.

No it doesn't. Try again.

Phrozenbot wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

But FM has a point FEOS, maybe we should clean our own house before we go thumbing our nose? Even if Chavez is a complete nut.

Every nation acts according to its own perceived interests. Not every other nation in the world is going to necessarily agree with those interests. It's not a popularity contest--it's OK to disagree with another country's policies and actions.

Recognizing that countries act according to their interests and not your interests (if you're from another country) is a step towards adulthood, I suppose.

It's not about "cleaning our own house" at all. It's about recognizing that our issues with Venezuela have fucking zero to do with oil and everything to do with Chavez's policies and the actions he takes in line with what he perceives to be his nation's interests.

We already established that it isn't about oil. So what is it about then, him being a socialist pig and a nutter? Okay I agree, however, we've been a tad socialistic as of late too. Maybe not to the extreme of out-right nationalizing entire markets or industries, but we're leaning in that direction more and more.

And? It's not like you'll get any argument that any of that is a good thing.

Phrozenbot wrote:

So Chavez can ruin business in his country by nationalizing everything, and we can ruin ours with unserviceable debt. I'm waiting to hear what is so important about Venezuela that is in 'our' best interest.

It's less about Venezuela and more about the other countries he's trying to influence or counter our policies with (Colombia is a big example).

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

We already established that it isn't about oil. So what is it about then, him being a socialist pig and a nutter? Okay I agree, however, we've been a tad socialistic as of late too. Maybe not to the extreme of out-right nationalizing entire markets or industries, but we're leaning in that direction more and more.

So Chavez can ruin business in his country by nationalizing everything, and we can ruin ours with unserviceable debt. I'm waiting to hear what is so important about Venezuela that is in 'our' best interest.

Can I ask a question? Why do so many Americans hate Socialists and Socialism even when it's outside of the United States? It really seems like you've been brainwashed to believe that Socialism is evil, or even contagious! The EU is by and large socialist and we've got along okay since that whole Hitler hiccup. Is the American Capitalist dream really that paranoid that it has to try and stamp out Socialism wherever possible?

Who says that we're trying to stamp out socialism "wherever possible"? It's not about his economic model, it's about his politics. We didn't try to "stamp out" France, did we? Or any other European country.

You're confusing economics and politics again.

What business is it of America how Chavez runs his affairs? Fair enough, since taking power he has nationalised industries where multinational companies had been operating but to be fair that's his prerogative, even if it is annoying for US interests. Just give him a wide berth and he will feel the effects. If he feels he can get by without the pervasive intrusion of globalisation into every aspect of Venezuelan industry then leave him be, if he realises it's not in Venezuela's best interests he'll come crawling back looking for foreign investment.

Whatever criticisms you have of Chavez as a leader, what he's done is no worse than that US-backed coup that got caught on camera by an Irish film crew a few years ago... cynical, manipulative, murderous treachery.

JohnG@lt wrote:

It does when countries like Venezuela steal billions of dollars worth of investment in their economy when they nationalize industries. American companies have lost tens of billions of dollars that they sank into plants and other things after having been invited. Please tell me how practices like that don't preclude us from trading with the nation? Free trade and nationalized industries do not mesh well. (And don't say it works for Norway's Statoil because the Norwegian government has essentially turned the country into one big corporation).

Thats an unusual example and an extreme one, Chavez being right at the extreme end of Socialist.
Socialism doesn't generally preclude trade with a country, and the is a difference between trading and allowing foreign companies to set up and control a large part of your industry.

I bet if, say, Obama sold off the US power industry to China President Palin would re-take it pretty promptly.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

What business is it of America how Chavez runs his affairs? Fair enough, since taking power he has nationalised industries where multinational companies had been operating but to be fair that's his prerogative, even if it is annoying for US interests. Just give him a wide berth and he will feel the effects. If he feels he can get by without the pervasive intrusion of globalisation into every aspect of Venezuelan industry then leave him be, if he realises it's not in Venezuela's best interests he'll come crawling back looking for foreign investment.

Whatever criticisms you have of Chavez as a leader, what he's done is no worse than that US-backed coup that got caught on camera by an Irish film crew a few years ago... cynical, manipulative, murderous treachery.

How he runs his affairs in his country isn't the issue--it's his foreign policy that's the issue. Are you paying attention, Brad?

And just tons of evidence of a "US-backed coup" in that link there, Brad. Incontrovertible. Inarguable. Or not.

His foreign policies? You mean how he deals with Venezuela's South American neighbours? In my opinion the US has about as much right to get a bee in their bonnet over how he does business with his neighbours as he has to get a bee in his bonnet over how the US does business with Canada or Mexico.

What specific aspects of his foreign policies do you take umbrage at?

Generally, it's his support for FARC and Castro. He's a destabilizing figure in the western hemisphere and he's been undercutting US influence. He's also well on his way to running his country into the ground which will have long term ramifications for those of us on this side of the globe as well. Revolutions and counter revolutions and death squads along with massive emigration (much of which enters the US illegaly) are generally the end result of unstable governments in Central and South America.

I think the argument that globalization is exploitative is rather naive. Yes, of course the company will pay your workers well below prevailing wages. They aren't a charity, you aren't going to receive the prevailing wages of the home country of the company. If the company was going to pay those wages it would've just stayed home. You may feel it is unfair but those jobs didn't exist at all before, no? You have to walk before you can run and most of these third world countries would rather crawl indefinitely and depend on charity rather than taking the evolutionary steps that the rest of the West made over hundreds of years. Damn your pride and work your way up like we did.

Not directed at anyone in this thread, just my observations on people who think like Chavez.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How he runs his affairs in his country isn't the issue--it's his foreign policy that's the issue. Are you paying attention, Brad?

And just tons of evidence of a "US-backed coup" in that link there, Brad. Incontrovertible. Inarguable. Or not.

His foreign policies? You mean how he deals with Venezuela's South American neighbours? In my opinion the US has about as much right to get a bee in their bonnet over how he does business with his neighbours as he has to get a bee in his bonnet over how the US does business with Canada or Mexico.

What specific aspects of his foreign policies do you take umbrage at?

Generally, it's his support for FARC and Castro. He's a destabilizing figure in the western hemisphere and he's been undercutting US influence. He's also well on his way to running his country into the ground which will have long term ramifications for those of us on this side of the globe as well. Revolutions and counter revolutions and death squads along with massive emigration (much of which enters the US illegaly) are generally the end result of unstable governments in Central and South America.

Castro is harming nobody (not outside of Cuba anyway) and his support for FARC is most likely by and large a reaction to US-funded Colombian shenanigans along his border... no different to the US backing the Contras in Nicaragua (nice bunch of fellows they were too). As regards destabilising the Western hemisphere and South America in particular? I think the US and IMF have done a better job of that than Chavez could ever hope to... The 'miracle' of Chile? Argentina's Collapse? You talk about death squads, the Contras were death squads and you helped train and support them. The destabilisation of these nations is as much a part of America's interference behind the scenes as anything else.

The US just traditionally feels it has a right to exert influence over its neighbours and beyond, while no one else has the right to do the same. I fully understand that the US has the ability to do this and understand that it will continue to do this, I just get tired of listening to Americans moralising on the issue of foreign policy as though they have a clean conscience.

JohnG@lt wrote:

I think the argument that globalization is exploitative is rather naive. Yes, of course the company will pay your workers well below prevailing wages. They aren't a charity, you aren't going to receive the prevailing wages of the home country of the company. If the company was going to pay those wages it would've just stayed home. You may feel it is unfair but those jobs didn't exist at all before, no? You have to walk before you can run and most of these third world countries would rather crawl indefinitely and depend on charity rather than taking the evolutionary steps that the rest of the West made over hundreds of years. Damn your pride and work your way up like we did.

Not directed at anyone in this thread, just my observations on people who think like Chavez.

I understand where you're coming from. Obviously these companies are not charities and are out to attain the best profit margins possible, but my grievance as regards exploitation would be more an issue of how cheaply some Governments sell off natural resources rather than developing the means with which to exploit the natural resources themselves (or at least strike a half-decent deal for the nation as a whole). Take the Corrib Gas field again, Shell approached our Government to make a deal to extract the natural gas along the coast of Mayo and, in a time when fossil fuels are getting scarcer and more expensive, our Government bizarrely decided to abolish all royalties on petroleum and natural gas extraction and remove the state's right to participation, as well as surrendering our stake in existing gas fields, and reducing the tax rate for exploration companies to the lowest in the world... meaning that now, as Russia plays hard ball with Europe with its own supplies, the Irish consumer has to pay increasingly high prices for its own fucking gas.

I guess my grievance is more with the Government than the multi-nationals (they're just doing what they do). This is an example of a Government selling out its own people, I shudder to think of what backhanders they got in return for all this. Hopefully one day we'll get a full enquiry.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Castro is harming nobody (not outside of Cuba anyway) and his support for FARC is most likely by and large a reaction to US-funded Colombian shenanigans along his border... no different to the US backing the Contras in Nicaragua (nice bunch of fellows they were too). As regards destabilising the Western hemisphere and South America in particular? I think the US and IMF have done a better job of that than Chavez could ever hope to... The 'miracle' of Chile? Argentina's Collapse? You talk about death squads, the Contras were death squads and you helped train and support them. The destabilisation of these nations is as much a part of America's interference behind the scenes as anything else.

Stop with the melodrama, Brad. There's no "US-funded Colombian shenanigans along his border". All the "US-funded shenanigans" within Colombia are generally focused in the south- south-west of the country, where the coca fields are...also where the FARC generally operate, IIRC. Chavez likes to claim shenanigans in order to justify his actions, but there simply aren't any.

Braddock wrote:

The US just traditionally feels it has a right to exert influence over its neighbours and beyond, while no one else has the right to do the same. I fully understand that the US has the ability to do this and understand that it will continue to do this, I just get tired of listening to Americans moralising on the issue of foreign policy as though they have a clean conscience.

Again, all countries have the right to engage in foreign policy--or, as you've so ineloquently put it, "exert influence over...neighbors and beyond"--and all countries do it. Even lil 'ol Ireland. The US has never said no one else has the right to do it. But the US certainly has the right to take issue with foreign policies of others that it considers ill-advised or detrimental, just as others seem to have no problem taking issue with us. Or is it merely OK for others to criticize the US but not the other way around?

The vast majority of foreign policy, as far as superpowers are concerned, IS the exertion of influence over neighbours (usually to the benefit of the superpower and often to the detriment of the neighbour). The US takes umbrage at Venezuelan policy because the elected leader Chavez has seen unfairness in the way Globalisation divides up wealth among the population and has decided to do something about it. The fact that the leader of an oil-rich country in a continent that is otherwise beholden to the US is attempting to implement an extreme left-wing Socialist agenda upsets Washington because it makes it more difficult for the US to plunder valuable resources at knockdown prices. The US is most likely terrified at the prospect of other South American nations following Chavez's lead and trying to get better deals for their resources... for the US to live so comfortably some other nations have to live uncomfortably (that's just the way of the world). While I can understand the grievances that multinational bosses have at agreed deals being revoked, I also understand the grievances of the Venezuelan people who feel they weren't getting a good deal for their natural resources.

As regards Colombia, it's all conjecture regarding how deep and far-reaching US operations are there. What is certain however is while the US have troops and operations in countries neighbouring Venezuela the same cannot be said of Venezuelan activity in Canada or Mexico... Chavez has more right to get antsy-in-his-pantsy in that regard. There also haven't been any Venzuelan-backed US coups lately.

America claims to champion democracy but the reality is they only like democracy when it results in leaders who follow the American view of world politics and economics. I believe countries should be allowed to govern and decide for themselves. If they are not hurting any other nations then leave them to it, it's their prerogative.