Socialism at Work In Venezuela

[Crazed Rabbit]

Two big things;
The level of oil produced in Venezuela has fallen by a quarter in the last ten years. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/3183417/Venezuelas-oil-output-slumps-under-Hugo-Chavez.html)


Venezuela's oil output slumps under Hugo Chavez
Venezuela's daily oil production has fallen by a quarter since President Hugo Chavez won power, depriving his "Bolivarian Revolution" of much of the benefit of the global boom in oil prices.

By Jeremy McDermott in Caracas
Last Updated: 7:26AM BST 13 Oct 2008

To win allies and forge an anti-American front, Mr Chavez sells oil to friendly countries at low prices. Ironically, the only big customer buying Venezuelan oil at the full market price is the United States, which the president routinely denounces as the "Empire".

"As production falls, the sales to the US become more important," said Pietro Donatello, an oil analyst from Latin Petroleum in the capital, Caracas. "Only the US is paying the full amount for Venezuelan oil and in cash, the rest are in some kind of barter agreements."

The state oil company, PDVSA, produced 3.2 million barrels per day in 1998, the year before Mr Chavez won the presidency. After a decade of rising corruption and inefficiency, daily output has now fallen to 2.4 million barrels, according to OPEC figures. About half of this oil is now delivered at a discount to Mr Chavez's friends around Latin America. The 18 nations in his "Petrocaribe" club, founded in 2005, pay Venezuela only 30 per cent of the market price within 90 days, with rest in instalments spread over 25 years.

The other half - 1.2 million barrels per day - goes to America, Venezuela's only genuinely paying customer.

Meanwhile, Mr Chavez has given PDVSA countless new tasks. "The new PDVSA is central to the social battle for the advance of our country," said Rafael Ramirez, the company's president and the minister for petroleum. "We have worked to convert PDVSA into a key element for the social battle."

The company now grows food after Mr Chavez's price controls emptied supermarket shelves of products like milk and eggs. Another branch produces furniture and domestic appliances in an effort to stem the flow of imports. What PDVSA seems unable to do is produce more oil.

Venezuela has proven reserves of 80 billion barrels, but estimates suggest that it may possess 142 billion barrels - more than anywhere else except Saudi Arabia. But the crude is of low quality and must be upgraded before it can be shipped. There are only three upgrade units currently operating, processing only 600,000 barrels per day.

"There is a bottleneck in the Venezuelan production system," said Mazhar al-Sheridah, 68, an oil expert at the Central University of Venezuela. "It will cost at least $32 billion to build another three upgrading units and take some five years, meaning that Venezuelan production is stuck at current levels for a while yet."

All this means that Venezuela has missed much of the benefit from the oil boom and, now that prices are falling, Mr Chavez faces huge financial problems. Nobody is sure at what point his government would be unable to pay its bills, but most sources consulted believe this would probably happen if oil falls to $80 a barrel. Yesterday, oil was trading at $79.80.

Venezuela is having an increasingly hard time providing basic electrical services to its people. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081023/wl_nm/us_venezuela_electricity)

Oil powerhouse Venezuela struggles to keep lights on

By Brian Ellsworth Brian Ellsworth – Wed Oct 22, 11:49 pm ET

SAN FELIX, Venezuela (Reuters) – Despite having some of the world's largest energy reserves, Venezuela is increasingly struggling to maintain basic electrical service, a growing challenge for leftist President Hugo Chavez.

The OPEC nation has suffered three nationwide blackouts this year, and chronic power shortages have sparked protests from the western Andean highlands to San Felix, a city of mostly poor industrial workers in the sweltering south.

Shoddy electrical service is now one of Venezuelans' top concerns, according to a recent poll, and may be a factor in elections next month for governors and mayors in which Chavez allies are expected to lose key posts, in part on complaints of poor services.

The problem suggests that Chavez, with his ambitious international alliances and promises to end capitalism, risks alienating supporters by failing to focus on basic issues like electricity, trash collection and law enforcement.

"With so much energy in Venezuela, how can we be without power?" asked Fernando Aponte, 49, whose slum neighborhood of Las Delicias in San Felix spent 15 days without electricity -- leading him to block a nearby avenue with burning tires in protest.

Just next door, Carmen Fernandez, 82, who is blind and has a pacemaker, says she has trouble sleeping through sultry nights without even a fan to cool her.

Experts say Venezuela for years has skimped billions of dollars in electrical investments, leaving generation 20 percent below the level necessary for a stable power grid and increasing the risk of national outages. Officially Venezuela has a capacity of 22,500 megawatts for a population of 28 million people, but a sizeable proportion is not working, analysts say.

And while Chavez has won praise for investing in health and education, his government has done little to repair local distribution systems that deliver electricity to end users, from barrio residents to business and industries.

'GOD HEARD ME'

Pastora Medina, a legislator representing San Felix and nearby cities suffering chronic power problems, this month tried to bring the issue up in the national Congress in Caracas, but the legislature's leadership refused to let her speak.

Several hours later, as the legislature discussed a South American integration plan created by Chavez, Congress itself lost power for around 10 minutes.

"Congress wouldn't listen to me, but God must have," Medina said with a chuckle as she recounted the incident later at her office in San Felix.

Though it is a key oil exporter, most of Venezuela's power comes from hydroelectricity generated in dams in the southeast, near Brazil, and sent to the rest of the country. The remainder comes mainly from aging oil-fired plants.

The transimission system is also suffering from underinvestment, which makes it vulnerable to the failures that caused this year's blackouts.

The government has responded by building dozens of tiny local plants that generate a fraction of a percent of national consumption, a model known as "distributed generation" used in Cuba, where a U.S. embargo impedes electrical development.

But to keep up with demand, Venezuela needed to add 1,000 megawatts of new generation capacity every year for at least the last five years, but instead it has installed only about 350 MW a year.

"We have to reach the most remote villages with the system of distributed generation," Chavez said in recent speech, inaugurating a generator in a town with deficient power.

His government has also promised to accelerate new generation and boost transmission grid investment.

BARRIO IMPACT

But critics say these small power plants are political quick fixes that avoid tackling the thorny problems of boosting generation and fixing decrepit distribution systems.

"We need a clear energy policy, because the policy we have is not sustainable," Andres Matas, a former planning chief for a state power company. "This is a problem for the entire country."

He said this will require investment in local distribution systems, speeding up generation projects stalled for years by bureaucracy and lifting state-imposed price controls that keep tariffs at about 20 percent of what U.S. residents pay.

It will also require collecting fees from millions of barrio residents who illegally link their homes to the power grid with improvised and dangerous lines -- a move not likely to be popular with a government that depends on barrio votes.

Even as he enjoys strong support for his oil-financed social development campaign, polls show Chavez sympathizers are losing patience with the national and local politicians' inability to tackle bread-and-butter issues.

Chavez last year fired up his supporters with a wave of state takeovers including the nationalization of electricity operations, among them Electricidad de Caracas, which was majority owned by U.S.-based AES Corp.

But his supporters now seem more concerned about deteriorating service than the state ownership.

Chronic power problems take the strongest toll in barrios like those of San Felix -- still bastions of Chavez support -- where power surges routinely burn out home appliances.

"Our refrigerators have burned out so we can't shop for the week, we can only shop for one day at a time," said Nestor Pacheco, 39. "The situation is serious."

(Reporting by Brian Ellsworth; Editing by Eddie Evans)

I guess 21st century socialism is just as worthless as the original brand. And, of course, the people suffer.

CR

[rvg]

So, Chavez is a failure. Can't say that I'm surprised.

[Strike For The South]

Classist. How dare you use this as proof? The reason Venezuela's is having so much trouble is because America keeps meddling in her affairs. If we just butted out like we were supposed to then Chavez could institute what he really wanted to instead of having to keep one eye on us. UGH

[rvg]

Classist. How dare you use this as proof? The reason Venezuela's is having so much trouble is because America keeps meddling in her affairs. If we just butted out like we were supposed to then Chavez could institute what he really wanted to instead of having to keep one eye on us. UGH

We are the universal bogeyman.

[Strike For The South]

We are the universal bogeyman.

Yup and our bogeys are ruining Venezuela. Its the newest in an old game of American subjugation in Latin America.

[LittleGrizzly]

I guess 21st century socialism is just as worthless as the original brand. And, of course, the people suffer.

Out of interest if there was a big finaincial crisis in say a big important country, say this country was conservative, would this mean that 21st century conservatism is worthless. side note in this hypothetical big important country people are suffering... losing thier homes ect.

will comment on the rest in a bit, just wanted to point out the easy flaw first... keeping up beating that strawman well your waiting for opposing views... i think you've almost got him!

[JAG]

... lol.

[Crazed Rabbit]

For the nteenth time, the sub prime mortgage fiasco came from a market heavily distorted by government regulations and benefits to certain companies.

Fannie and Freddie didn't show the failure of capitalism, because they are not free market companies.

EDIT: JAG, that all you got? I was at least expecting some hot air about Chavez standing up for the people and related BS.

CR

[Fragony]

Poor management, as much as I love to bash socialism I don't have a reason right now.

[Strike For The South]

I guess 21st century socialism is just as worthless as the original brand. And, of course, the people suffer.

Out of interest if there was a big finaincial crisis in say a big important country, say this country was conservative, would this mean that 21st century conservatism is worthless. side note in this hypothetical big important country people are suffering... losing thier homes ect.

will comment on the rest in a bit, just wanted to point out the easy flaw first... keeping up beating that strawman well your waiting for opposing views... i think you've almost got him!

I would like to point out that the US is alot more socialist than people would like to believe. Im not saying a fully laissez-faire economy would work Im just saying giving rich people 700 billion dollars when they fail isn't what Adam Smith had in mind.

[LittleGrizzly]

For the nteenth time, the sub prime mortgage fiasco came from a market heavily distorted by government regulations and benefits to certain companies.

This was my point exactly, i can't put the finaincial crisis down to conservatism any more reliabily

I think one of the biggest socialism haters on this board put it best

Poor management, as much as I love to bash socialism I don't have a reason right now.


I would like to point out that the US is alot more socialist than people would like to believe.

I wasn't trying to claim the finiancial crisis is because of conservatism, i believe mine and cr statements are eqaully false, i just made the statement to show the logical fallacy of cr's statement...

[Ice]

For the nteenth time, the sub prime mortgage fiasco came from a market heavily distorted by government regulations and benefits to certain companies.

Fannie and Freddie didn't show the failure of capitalism, because they are not free market companies

CR

Freddie and Fannie weren't the only causes of the global credit meltdown. Your statement isn't correct; a lack of regulation has hurt us too. I would dare to say that less regulation has hurt us more more. Credit Default sweeps and Predatory Lending/Idiotic Loan Taking are two examples of things that need heavily regulated.

PS: Sorry i never got back to you about the other stuff in the meltdown thread. You appeared to be partially right in saying that purchases of the assets wasn't the best idea. A cash injection in the form of direct loans served better.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Freddie and Fannie weren't the only causes of the global credit meltdown. Your statement isn't correct; a lack of regulation has hurt us too. I would dare to say that less regulation has hurt us more more. Credit Default sweeps and Predatory Lending/Idiotic Loan Taking are two examples of things that need heavily regulated.


There were and are plenty of regulations on the books. Enforcing existing regulations -- and prosecuting fraud vigorously -- is all the system has ever needed. Neither was done assiduously.

"Predatory Lending" should be addressed as fraud. "Idiotic Loan Taking" is a caveat emptor deal. Or are you seriously suggesting that we should somehow "regulate" what financial choices a free citizen makes for themselves?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Poor management, as much as I love to bash socialism I don't have a reason right now.

Socialism causes bad management.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

That other socialist oil state - Norway - strangely seems to be doing just fine. Meanwhile, capitalist Columbia is its usual unfortunate self.

[Spino]

Freddie and Fannie weren't the only causes of the global credit meltdown. Your statement isn't correct; a lack of regulation has hurt us too. I would dare to say that less regulation has hurt us more more. Credit Default sweeps and Predatory Lending/Idiotic Loan Taking are two examples of things that need heavily regulated.

PS: Sorry i never got back to you about the other stuff in the meltdown thread. You appeared to be partially right in saying that purchases of the assets wasn't the best idea. A cash injection in the form of direct loans served better.

All the regulation in the world cannot redress the problems brought about by an abundance of low IQ stupidity and the fallout from a culture that has inculcated fiscal irresponsibility for the better part of three to four decades.

[Ice]

There were and are plenty of regulations on the books. Enforcing existing regulations -- and prosecuting fraud vigorously -- is all the system has ever needed. Neither was done assiduously.

Go on about the existing regulation


"Predatory Lending" should be addressed as fraud.

Well it's quite hard to determine what is predatory and what wasn't exactly. If fraud was the case, then it should be prosecuted.


"Idiotic Loan Taking" is a caveat emptor deal. Or are you seriously suggesting that we should somehow "regulate" what financial choices a free citizen makes for themselves?


Yes I am. Some people are simply idiots. You should not be allowed to take out a loan you cannot possibly afford, even if the lender agrees to it. As you have seen, this causes a lot of problems.

[Ice]

All the regulation in the world cannot redress the problems brought about by an abundance of low IQ stupidity and the fallout from a culture that has inculcated fiscal irresponsibility for the better part of three to four decades.

I'm a realist and I realize that it will not solve all of problems. However, forward thinking and supervised regulation under experts can go a long way in helping.

I have yet to hear anyone address credit default sweeps. I'd like to hear why people think they need more or less regulation.

Edit: Anyone aware of the Glass-Stegal Depression Era Act? What do you guys think of it's repeal? I'd have to agree it was good exisiting legislation that needed to be tweaked. It basically forbid any one company from being an investment banker, a banker, an insurance agency, and one more that I don't recall.

[Ice]

That other socialist oil state - Norway - strangely seems to be doing just fine. Meanwhile, capitalist Columbia is its usual unfortunate self.

Just like a socialist America would do better than a capitalist Central African Republican, or "socialist" Sweden is doing better than capitalistic Bangladesh.

[yesdachi]

That other socialist oil state - Norway - strangely seems to be doing just fine. Meanwhile, capitalist Columbia is its usual unfortunate self.

I would attribute that to culture and leadership :yes:

[Tribesman]

Wow thats amazing , an Opec country that is always pushing for a reduction in production of oil is producing less oil than it was in the late 1990s ...stunning isn't it .
Hold on maybe there is something in this ...errrrr......yeah there must be something .....errrrr.....late 1990s ....errrrrr....oh thats when Opec boosted production before cutting it again isn't it .
Hey rabbit you should have waited , not only did they vote to cut procuction again this month they are having another meeting next month on cutting production further ....if only you had waited you could have announced a bigger reduction in oil production for Venezueala:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[CountArach]

Surely the man with more oil 20 years from now will be King?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wow thats amazing , an Opec country that is always pushing for a reduction in production of oil is producing less oil than it was in the late 1990s blah blah blah

Nope, today's OPEC production levels are about the same as 1998. (http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPOP.gif) Not Venezuela, though.

And maybe he's pushing for quota reductions because he can't even reach his own. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC)

Considering that selling oil to the US supports the entire country, I don't think Chavez'd be pumping ~1,000,000 bbl/day less than the quota by choice.

But maybe the article and all the reports about the struggling Venezuelan oil industry are wrong. :laugh4:

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow thats amazing , an Opec country that is always pushing for a reduction in production of oil is producing less oil than it was in the late 1990s ...stunning isn't it .
Hold on maybe there is something in this ...errrrr......yeah there must be something .....errrrr.....late 1990s ....errrrrr....oh thats when Opec boosted production before cutting it again isn't it .
Hey rabbit you should have waited , not only did they vote to cut procuction again this month they are having another meeting next month on cutting production further ....if only you had waited you could have announced a bigger reduction in oil production for Venezueala:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Somehow all of the other OPEC countries managed to make huge money during the run-up in prices, despite production cuts.

I don't know why you constantly dance around defending Chavez. His little experiment is an embarrassment to all who hold leftist views.

[Tribesman]

Wow Rabbit thinks that the country that pushed for oil production cuts in 1998 didn't want to cut oil production .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Nice thing about the quotas though , can you explain why Saudi which under US pressure boosted production still doesn't meet its quota ?
Then can you explain why many of the other Opec countries don't meet their quota either ?
And then can you explain why many of the other Opec countries have quotas that exceed their capacity ?
But then I suppose that might require a little too much thought for you to manage:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Perhaps you could go for an easy one , just explain the basics of the quota system used by Opec:yes:

[HoreTore]

Bah CR, this is still the 20th century brand of socialism. If you want to look at 21th century socialism, take a peek at scandinavia, for example. And we're doing great(the rock in the middle of nowhere called iceland excluded).


even though you already knew that, and started this thread purely for the troll factor....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Socialism at work in the US (http://www.usps.com/)

[Lemur]

Or are you seriously suggesting that we should somehow "regulate" what financial choices a free citizen makes for themselves?
Um, don't we do that anyway? Isn't that the reason we put caps on interest rates credit cards are allowed to charge? Isn't that why companies are forced to share information with shareholders? (In a true free market, you would choose between public companies that are transparent and those that are not, and the market would sort it out).

The kids and I love to visit our local socialist center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_library) on Saturday mornings.

-edit-

Say, would anyone like to make the argument that loan sharks exist because we "somehow 'regulate' what financial choices a free citizen makes for themselves?"

[Viking]

I would attribute that to culture and leadership :yes:

So, you're basically saying that capitalism and socialism are going to yield the same results? Or that if Norway embraced capitalism, it would be utopia? :laugh4:

By all means, I don't like socialism, but this just silly.

[yesdachi]

So, you're basically saying that capitalism and socialism are going to yield the same results? Or that if Norway embraced capitalism, it would be utopia? :laugh4:

By all means, I don't like socialism, but this just silly.

It’s not silly. A good, positive culture will flourish under nearly any form of government as long as it has a good leader; Norway seems to have both a positive culture and a decent leader.

It also doesn’t hurt that they have a decent cash resource. :yes:

[Viking]

It’s not silly. A good, positive culture will flourish under nearly any form of government as long as it has a good leader; Norway seems to have both a positive culture and a decent leader.

It also doesn’t hurt that they have a decent cash resource. :yes:

The silliness wasn't pointed at you; but at CR. Sorry about that. :whip:

A cash resource you say; well, which cash resource does Sweden have (a country with 2x the population)? Iceland? Denmark?

[yesdachi]

A cash resource you say; well, which cash resource does Sweden have (a country with 2x the population)? Iceland? Denmark?

I was referring to Norway with the cash resource comment. Sweden is a mess and I don’t know much about Iceland and Denmark.

[Viking]

I was referring to Norway with the cash resource comment. Sweden is a mess and I don’t know much about Iceland and Denmark.

I know, but if you look at lists like... this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita)and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index) it becomes relevant as Norway isn't much more socialistic than these countries, AFAIK; and they have no oil.

[Ironside]

Sweden is a mess

Que? :inquisitive:

Last time checked we're still in the top 5 countries in the world when it comes
life quality and still keeps going strong when it comes to the economy.

Edit: Viking gave some links telling exactly that thing.

[Jolt]

Socialism causes bad management.

CR

Uh? Care to expand upon that? Why? How?

The way I see it, Socialism would have prevented this crisis. Socialism prevents dumbass market speculators et al. which have been behind this crisis.

[Koga No Goshi]

Uh? Care to expand upon that? Why? How?

The way I see it, Socialism would have prevented this crisis. Socialism prevents dumbass market speculators et al. which have been behind this crisis.

Hehe, if Socialism causes bad management then what is our excuse?

[yesdachi]

Que? :inquisitive:

Last time checked we're still in the top 5 countries in the world when it comes
life quality and still keeps going strong when it comes to the economy.

Edit: Viking gave some links telling exactly that thing.

you have Kadagar, need i say more. :laugh4: just kidding just kidding.

I get the impression that Sweden is teetering on the brink of being overrun by immigrants and collapsing under the strain, changing the culture dramatically for the worse. Just the impression I get.

[Koga No Goshi]

People in the U.S. perceive that we are "swarmed" with immigration, but actually http://www.hispanic5.com/foreign_born_in_us_at_record_high.htm our foreign-born population is only 20% of the population, as opposed to 35% back in 1910.

Regarding Sweden, its foreign-born population is 12%, half of Australia's foreign-born percentage and behind Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg. I think they'll survive.

[yesdachi]

People in the U.S. perceive that we are "swarmed" with immigration, but actually http://www.hispanic5.com/foreign_born_in_us_at_record_high.htm our foreign-born population is only 20% of the population, as opposed to 35% back in 1910.

Regarding Sweden, its foreign-born population is 12%, half of Australia's foreign-born percentage and behind Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg. I think they'll survive.

Interesting read but it is 4 years old. I bet the percentage is a little higher with the illegal number added. :bow:

[Koga No Goshi]

Interesting read but it is 4 years old. I bet the percentage is a little higher with the illegal number added. :bow:

Census data is always behind. No helping that.

[Tribesman]

I get the impression that Sweden is teetering on the brink of being overrun by immigrants and collapsing under the strain, changing the culture dramatically for the worse. Just the impression I get.

Well thats no surprise , if you want to avoid getting that false impression then start treating the postings of a certain Dutch fella concerning immigration with a grain of salt....or should that be a very very large sack of salt .

But hey back to topic... Rabbit was too early , another meeting went ahead today where they voted again to cut production even further , apparently they have this thing about the problem that occured before 1998 ...you know 1998 the year mentioned as having more oil produced than 10 years later:idea2:
Oh them damn socialists eh , whodathunk all them Arab oil sheiks were really socialists .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
BTW Rabbit , any luck trying to educate yourself about the Opec quota system yet?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Perhaps you could do something simpler .....like explain the massive drop in Saudi production since 2006:yes: Or their massive increase in 2003:idea2: It might help you get some of the basics :2thumbsup:
But hmmmmm....oh yeah this was about Venezuela production wasn't it ...what is the date that venezuela has put on new production ? you know new production as in new expanded production after a big outlay lots of development and lots and lots and lots of foriegn investment ?

[Ironside]

you have Kadagar, need i say more. :laugh4: just kidding just kidding.

I get the impression that Sweden is teetering on the brink of being overrun by immigrants and collapsing under the strain, changing the culture dramatically for the worse. Just the impression I get.

On the immigration it's problematic form is mostly located to particular regions that's been ghettofied, while certainly not good it's not really a new problem, neither here in Sweden or in other places. The problem is that it takes time (as in decades) to fix.
But basically, only listening to Fragony (and most of the news here as they are having odd selection processes) will give you about the same view as looking at the Wire and think that the ghettos there are representative to the US as a whole.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So which is it tribesy, that Venezuela has low production on purpose because they want to keep prices high, or are they investing lots of money to ramp up production?

:rolleyes:

In short, links or you are lying.


Uh? Care to expand upon that? Why? How?

Socialism removes the main motive for running successful companies: profit. It distorts the best method for producing what people want, and so causes bad decisions in regards to what should be produced, who should be hired, etc.

And I don't think of Norway and Sweden as being as socialistic as Venzuela; have they nationalized all the large companies in those countries?

CR

[yesdachi]

On the immigration it's problematic form is mostly located to particular regions that's been ghettofied, while certainly not good it's not really a new problem, neither here in Sweden or in other places. The problem is that it takes time (as in decades) to fix.
But basically, only listening to Fragony (and most of the news here as they are having odd selection processes) will give you about the same view as looking at the Wire and think that the ghettos there are representative to the US as a whole.

But isn’t it true that cities like Malmo already have a higher population of Muslims than Swedes? Sounds like a growing occurrence. :bow:

[rvg]

But isn’t it true that cities like Malmo already have a higher population of Muslims than Swedes? Sounds like a growing occurrence. :bow:

You mean like Dearborn? :)

[Koga No Goshi]

You mean like Dearborn? :)

I am not sure those are comparable. The Dearborn Middle Eastern population is overwhelmingly "first wave"; middle class, educated, skilled professionals. Doctors and business owners.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Slightly related, the International Herald Tribune ran a nice article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/21/news/21petro.php?page=1). Maybe Chavez should've had invested Venezuela's oil revenue's into developing Venezuela for its poor, instead of using it to further his vain ideological adventures.


As the price of oil roared to ever higher levels in recent years, the leaders of Venezuela, Iran and Russia muscled their way onto the world stage, using checkbook diplomacy and, on occasion, intimidation. Now, plummeting oil prices are raising questions about whether the countries can sustain their spending — and their bids to challenge United States hegemony. For all three nations, oil money was a means to an ideological end.

President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela used it to jump-start a socialist-inspired revolution in his country and to back a cadre of like-minded leaders in Latin America who were intent on eroding once-dominant American influence. But such ambitions are harder to finance when oil is at $74.25 a barrel, its closing price Monday in New York, than when it is at $147, its price as recently as three months ago.

Chávez was emphatic last month when he announced that Venezuela would engage in naval exercises with the Russian Navy in the Caribbean. "Go ahead and squeal, Yanquis," he said. "Russia's naval fleet is welcome here." The moment, made possible in part by a flood of petrodollars used to buy Russian weaponry, must have been sweet for a man who has spent his presidency wagging his finger at the United States and railing against its capitalist model. Cozying up to Russia, whose leaders have been increasingly at odds with the United States, evoked cold war rivalries in the hemisphere.

Chávez has also used his oil money — in direct payments and through subsidized oil shipments — to win friends in the hemisphere and elsewhere, including President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who expelled the United States ambassador in La Paz last month, saying the envoy was involved in plotting a coup.

Domestic spending in Venezuela has also surged, through the creation of a wide array of social welfare programs that furthered Chávez's goal of building a socialist-inspired state — and suppressed opposition. The 2009 budget, based on $60-a-barrel oil, includes a 23 percent increase in government spending, to $78.9 billion. At $140 a barrel for oil, that was conservative. With prices now uncomfortably close to $60 a barrel, economists in Venezuela are expressing alarm over the government's ability to pay its bills, including those for arms purchases.

Venezuelans are already struggling with an inflation rate of 36 percent, one of the highest in the world. Chávez said on Saturday that the country could endure any oil price decline, citing its $40 billion in foreign currency reserves, though he then qualified his remarks by saying that oil prices at $80 to $90 a barrel would be sufficient for his plans.

Still, fears of an impending economic crisis in Venezuela are increasing because of a lack of transparency in public finances and because the economy has grown far more dependent on oil in the decade Chávez has been in power, with seizures of rural estates weakening agricultural output and nationalizations scaring away foreign investors.

"This country will be paralyzed because it is so dependent on petroleum," said Oscar García Mendoza, president of Banco Venezolano de Credito, a private bank. Anxiety over the economy already helped lead to a sell-off of Venezuelan government bonds, sharply limiting the country's borrowing options. Last week, Venezuela's embassy in Nicaragua said the Caracas government would postpone construction of a $4 billion oil refinery there. And the national oil company announced that it would tighten the terms for subsidizing oil exports to some Caribbean countries.

[Tribesman]

In short, links or you are lying.

Change the record Rabbit , you repeatedly call out liar when you clearly havn't got the faintest idea what you are on about . You are the one that posted a load of bollox and are unable to understand even the simplest things .

Look even ......
So which is it tribesy, that Venezuela has low production on purpose because they want to keep prices high, or are they investing lots of money to ramp up production?
...shows that you havn't got the faintest idea what you are on about .
If you did you might understand , after all its not like the plans for the development of the belt have been discussed here about half a dozen times already , or the new contracts , or the new tanker fleet , terminals and pipelines .
You do however repeatedly post piles of rubbish again and again on a range of subjects long after it has been established that your "facts" are pure bollox .

Interesting read Louis , however it was written before the latest move to boost prices again by further cutting production .There are two things to note , much depends on China and their prospects of weathering the financial storm , plus of course Russias recent moves to join the price fixing cartel . Though that would require unanimiity and perhaps America could apply sufficient pressure on its favourite socialist shieks to vote no . Then again with Americas Socialism sending their economy down the pan maybe they havn't enough money to bribe enough of them royal socialists anymore , maybe they will bribe Nigeria instead .

[Jolt]

Socialism removes the main motive for running successful companies: profit. It distorts the best method for producing what people want, and so causes bad decisions in regards to what should be produced, who should be hired, etc.

And I don't think of Norway and Sweden as being as socialistic as Venzuela; have they nationalized all the large companies in those countries?

CR

Wait. You're confusing Socialism with Communism. Socialism doesn't remove profit from companies. What it does is using the taxes it gets from the companies and redistributes it to the other parts which the State views as necessary investment for the society, benefiting those who otherwise wouldn't have money to invest in it. Contrarily, Liberal States view profits of a company should be exclusively used by the economic agent that is the company (And it's main participants in the Market of Production factors, being those the ones who supply the company with capital, rather than the ones who supply it with labour.) Companies still make profits in both views. You have plenty of examples of well established and profitable companies originating from Socialist States. The major one I can remember is IKEA.

Once again, it doesn't distort any method whatsoever since a Socialist State can't possibly shape what people want, therefore it doesn't cause bad decisions in what should be produced, since the State doesn't, and can't even decide what a company can produce (So long as what the company wishes to produce is legal). Nor does it decide who can or can't be hired, that is entirely up for the company. What a Socialist State does is try to steer an economy into something that is wanted for the country (It would be extremely stupid if governments wouldn't try to steer their economies into producing and incentivating more Renewable Energy and Renewable Energy companies), and that is done by providing benefits (To build and use renewable energy or employ older people, for instance). It doesn't force a company to have to resort to employing older people, it gives the company the choice between supporting older people, who normally have higher rates of "Long-term Unemployment" (Which is a blight on any economy who wishes to be positive) and who might (Or not.) work less efficiently, thus gaining some tax cuts, OR not employing older people, having younger people working more efficiently (Or not.) and pay up normally as any other company would. In the end, the company needs to check if it's worth hiring older people or not.

In the Liberal Country, older people would be stuck because companies generally prefer younger people who, stereotypically, supposedly have more energy and efficiency than their older counterparts, thus trapping perpetually older unemployed people in the "Long-Term Unemployment", until they decide to take a job not suited to their skills, and being forced to accept lower payments.
Social-Darwinism? I call these views plain stupid.

As you can see, a Socialist State doesn't force companies to do its bidding, it gives incentives and uses part of a company's profits (Like a Liberal Government does, really, but to a lesser extent) so we can live in a more equal society.

[LittleGrizzly]

Well put Jolt!

now an attempt to guess at a clapping smiley

:applause:

[Tribesman]

Good post Jolt , but I think you are wasting your time , he will get to the fourth word and then go into mental block mode .
BTW you didn't put in a link so you are lying:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[CountArach]

Socialism removes the main motive for running successful companies: profit. It distorts the best method for producing what people want, and so causes bad decisions in regards to what should be produced, who should be hired, etc.
Or, I dunno, we could... vote them out?

[HoreTore]

Socialism removes the main motive for running successful companies: profit. It distorts the best method for producing what people want, and so causes bad decisions in regards to what should be produced, who should be hired, etc.

And I don't think of Norway and Sweden as being as socialistic as Venzuela; have they nationalized all the large companies in those countries?

CR

No, we have not. Hence why I would call our brand 21th century socialism. Planned economies goes in the 20th century bin.

And that last point by CA is good. Take health care for example, as that seems to be a major argument against socialism, the argument being that you're stuck with whatever the state wants to give you. That's simply not true. What actually happens, is that we have 7 parties who all desperately try to come up with the best health care system(all of which being public and free), because they know that a good health care plan is a very solid card to get elected. And, should the population be satisfied with your job and they think you improved it over your predecessor, your chance of re-election is vastly improved. That's the capitalist incentive system, but with no billionaires and free health services for the population. Win-win.

The idea that governments can't run a successful business because there is no incentive to good is rubbish. There is power to be gained, and power to be lost.

Also, let's say government X wants to establish company Y. Who do you think they'll get to run it? A party member? Hah, no, they get the exact same guys a private company would, and pay them the same. The difference is that as owners, a government won't pocket the profits, they give the profits back to the population.

[Fragony]

Que? :inquisitive:

Last time checked we're still in the top 5 countries in the world when it comes
life quality and still keeps going strong when it comes to the economy.

Edit: Viking gave some links telling exactly that thing.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Ironside]

But isn’t it true that cities like Malmo already have a higher population of Muslims than Swedes? Sounds like a growing occurrence. :bow:

While there's a growing occurance (due to immigration and higher birthrates), cities like Malmö does not have a higher population of Muslims than Swedes, not even more immigrants than Swedes (immigrants also consist of those foreginers known as Danes, Poles, Finns, Germans, Hungarians to name some large groups living in Malmö).

It's true for some regions inside cities like Malmö though.

Edit: Trying to summon your inner tribesman Fragony?

[Fragony]

Are you kidding me it's still early in the morning, coffee it is :yes:

Sweden :juggle2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wait. You're confusing Socialism with Communism. Socialism doesn't remove profit from companies. What it does is using the taxes it gets from the companies and redistributes it to the other parts which the State views as necessary investment for the society, benefiting those who otherwise wouldn't have money to invest in it. Contrarily, Liberal States view profits of a company should be exclusively used by the economic agent that is the company (And it's main participants in the Market of Production factors, being those the ones who supply the company with capital, rather than the ones who supply it with labour.) Companies still make profits in both views. You have plenty of examples of well established and profitable companies originating from Socialist States. The major one I can remember is IKEA.

Once again, it doesn't distort any method whatsoever since a Socialist State can't possibly shape what people want, therefore it doesn't cause bad decisions in what should be produced, since the State doesn't, and can't even decide what a company can produce (So long as what the company wishes to produce is legal). Nor does it decide who can or can't be hired, that is entirely up for the company. What a Socialist State does is try to steer an economy into something that is wanted for the country (It would be extremely stupid if governments wouldn't try to steer their economies into producing and incentivating more Renewable Energy and Renewable Energy companies), and that is done by providing benefits (To build and use renewable energy or employ older people, for instance). It doesn't force a company to have to resort to employing older people, it gives the company the choice between supporting older people, who normally have higher rates of "Long-term Unemployment" (Which is a blight on any economy who wishes to be positive) and who might (Or not.) work less efficiently, thus gaining some tax cuts, OR not employing older people, having younger people working more efficiently (Or not.) and pay up normally as any other company would. In the end, the company needs to check if it's worth hiring older people or not.

In the Liberal Country, older people would be stuck because companies generally prefer younger people who, stereotypically, supposedly have more energy and efficiency than their older counterparts, thus trapping perpetually older unemployed people in the "Long-Term Unemployment", until they decide to take a job not suited to their skills, and being forced to accept lower payments.
Social-Darwinism? I call these views plain stupid.

As you can see, a Socialist State doesn't force companies to do its bidding, it gives incentives and uses part of a company's profits (Like a Liberal Government does, really, but to a lesser extent) so we can live in a more equal society.

Hmm. I don't think having taxes and using the money to fund unrelated programs is socialism; if that was the case, you could call the US socialist (and not just doing some socialist things). I view it as the state having control over companies, in brief.

I'd classify the heavy taxes state you described as more of a welfare state (assuming that's one of the type of things they use the tax money for).

And I don't understand your bit about elderly workers; here in the US the older people in a profession generally earn more because they have experience.


The idea that governments can't run a successful business because there is no incentive to good is rubbish. There is power to be gained, and power to be lost.

Also, let's say government X wants to establish company Y. Who do you think they'll get to run it? A party member? Hah, no, they get the exact same guys a private company would, and pay them the same. The difference is that as owners, a government won't pocket the profits, they give the profits back to the population.

And would that company go bankrupt if they ran out of money, or would they have the government fund them in that case, which would lead to a change from free market risk evaluation and planning? Have you heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Look at the original article:

"There is a bottleneck in the Venezuelan production system," said Mazhar al-Sheridah, 68, an oil expert at the Central University of Venezuela. "It will cost at least $32 billion to build another three upgrading units and take some five years, meaning that Venezuelan production is stuck at current levels for a while yet."

Venezuela's production is stuck right now. They have more problems providing basic services.

Anyway, what interesting to me is that none of the normal Chavez defenders have come out of the woodwork to speak for him, none of the people who were willing to give him time to see if he could improve the country, none of them who lauded him, none of those who didn't want to criticize him at first because he might help the people.

tribesy; have fun on your trip to irrelevenceville. :2thumbsup:

CR

[HoreTore]

And would that company go bankrupt if they ran out of money, or would they have the government fund them in that case, which would lead to a change from free market risk evaluation and planning? Have you heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Of course. Let's say you have two parties. Party one is in control of government, and has an important corporation about to fail. Party two is in opposition, and has a plan to save the day. Who's going to win the election?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is far, far away from a public service. It's a private and public hybrid, and that's doomed to fail.

[Jolt]

Hmm. I don't think having taxes and using the money to fund unrelated programs is socialism; if that was the case, you could call the US socialist (and not just doing some socialist things). I view it as the state having control over companies, in brief.

That is wrong. A liberal state generally sees the funding of "unrelated problems" completely to the private sector (e.g. Because the people want something, the government doesn't need to bother with it, since private companies will quickly cover for it, in a chance to make profit. The greatest/by far the most blatant example is the said "US National Health System" <- That is called "Laissez-Faire"). In a Socialist point of view, the Government views itself as having the responsibility to endorse and support what the people want, making public funding for it, or public/private co-funding (e.g. Using the example I just gave, European Health Systems). It's pretty laughable that you view Socialism as a "State that controls companies." As I explained in my previous post, that isn't true. Very far from it, actually. Your view of Socialism, as I already said, is actually Communism. Does the Swedish government control IKEA?


I'd classify the heavy taxes state you described as more of a welfare state (assuming that's one of the type of things they use the tax money for).

Yes. And welfare states are closely connected to Socialism, contrarily to Neo-Liberalism.


And I don't understand your bit about elderly workers; here in the US the older people in a profession generally earn more because they have experience.

CR

I wasn't talking about how much money older people get. I'm talking about how are they going to reenter the labour market when all the market wants is younger people.

I'll give you the example of my very own father. You see, due to difficulties since our entry into the Euro (Portugal was given by the European Commission as an example as to «what not do» when entering our currency), my father's usual business began to plummet. (He was a "Sort-of Freelance" salesman of furniture, working for various companies) Since then, he withdrawed form the business, since it was giving him more expenditures than profits. As such, at the age of 61 (He's now 65) he had ,for the first time since he returned from Angola in the advent of the Portuguese de-colonization (In 1975-76), to look for a new job. As such, reading employment articles (Or whatever they're called) for any company needing a salesman, 95% of them say they want a salesman with a maximum of 40 years of age. As such, any salesman who goes unemployed being 50 years old, has to struggle very hard to get a job where he can use his skills properly. My father went from 61 years old until only a few months ago without any satisfying employment offer (4 years without any money while having chronic illnesses and having to support a sizeable familly!!).

That is what I meant about the difficulties of elder workers in finding unemployment, because companies generally want younger men. In a Liberal State, no company would recieve incentives to employ elderly workers. These would be left to their own luck. In a Socialist State, however things are different. But then again, I already explained it in my last post.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's pretty laughable that you view Socialism as a "State that controls companies." As I explained in my previous post, that isn't true. Very far from it, actually. Your view of Socialism, as I already said, is actually Communism. Does the Swedish government control IKEA?

I typed 'socialism' into Google and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)agrees with me, as does the first (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism)few dictionary sites I found, including the Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism), and the first socialism website (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/Articles/nutshell.htm) that showed up, and the first economics website (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html) that showed up, and the world socialism movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php) seems to agree more with me as well. :shrug:


That is what I meant about the difficulties of elder workers in finding unemployment, because companies generally want younger men. In a Liberal State, no company would recieve incentives to employ elderly workers. These would be left to their own luck. In a Socialist State, however things are different. But then again, I already explained it in my last post.

I see. Here in the US, we have laws against age discrimination. I'm not sure how effective they are.


Of course. Let's say you have two parties. Party one is in control of government, and has an important corporation about to fail. Party two is in opposition, and has a plan to save the day. Who's going to win the election?

So to save it, they'd basically give the company money in addition to running it differently?

My point is, when companies don't have to deal with the economic realities of a free market, their decisions don't make the most economical use of resources.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

I started looking around WSM just out of interest rather than looking for any kind of counter argument..... ran into the following in the section
How the WSM Is Different From Other Groups

Some put forward a reasonable analysis of capitalism, but then work to give capitalism a "human face". Some claim that they want to end capitalism. Their bottom line is, however, just capitalism with reforms. Democratic Socialists of America is a good example of this.

We believe that socialism will be a wageless, moneyless, free-access society.
None agree with this.


Most support a market system. Some suggest that a non-capitalist market is possible. These suggestions show a lack of understanding of market economics. While non-capitalist market systems have existed, they are impractical in a modern world. If a "non-capitalist" market system was established it would eventually become a capitalist market system.

I think socialism has a fairly wide ranging meaning, i have described myself as a socialist on occassion but i did not mean state control of all enterprise by that, seen as communism seems to desribe a narrower definition perhaps it would be better to use this word for that range of views to avoid confusion.... though considering what your describing as socialism does that mean that venezula took state control of all businesses ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I started looking around WSM just out of interest rather than looking for any kind of counter argument..... ran into the following in the section
How the WSM Is Different From Other Groups

Huh, I didn't really check it out.


I think socialism has a fairly wide ranging meaning, i have described myself as a socialist on occassion but i did not mean state control of all enterprise by that, seen as communism seems to desribe a narrower definition perhaps it would be better to use this word for that range of views to avoid confusion.... though considering what your describing as socialism does that mean that venezula took state control of all businesses ?

Wide meaning, eh? Then maybe my views aren't that laughable after all. ~;)

CR

[HoreTore]

Socialism isn't one thing, CR. Like christianity, it has branched out in a ton of ways.


So to save it, they'd basically give the company money in addition to running it differently?

For example.


My point is, when companies don't have to deal with the economic realities of a free market, their decisions don't make the most economical use of resources.

What? The thing is, they will have to deal with the economical realities of a free market. I'm a voter. I want my government to run it's institutions the best way possible, I do not want them wasting money. The party most capable of running said corporation will get my vote. Because of that, the government will do their very best to ensure that the company is as efficient, well run and profitable as possible. If not, they will lose it. Just like a private owner will.

[TB666]

But isn’t it true that cities like Malmo already have a higher population of Muslims than Swedes? Sounds like a growing occurrence. :bow:
As a Malmö-native(born and raised and still live here being half-danish and half-swede) I will say that it is clearly false.
As Ironside already pointed out, the majority is still swedish people.
Only thing I can see such a rumour to be created and spun out of control is that in one of the schools in Malmö the majority of the students are immigrants.
This is the famous Rosengård's school.
Rosengård is the immigrant ghetto created by the politicans that couldn't see beyond their nose.
Only immigrants live there except for the few swedes who couldn't get an place to live anywhere else.
And if you go public school you don't pick which school you go to, you go the closest school.
So naturally all the immigrants will end up in one school.

This naturally causes problems and no one in Malmö casts this problem a blind eye.
We all know about it and want something to be done about it, swedish and immigrants alike.
But the politicans ignore it, atleast those in Stockholm. Our local politicans and "state council"(because lack of a better word to describe it) has sent countless letters to Stockholm asking them to stop sending immigrants to Malmö. It gets ignored.

But not all immigrants are muslims as Ironside pointed out.
Just last year, they pointed out on the radio that the largest immigrant group was actually danish people.
It's cheaper to live in Sweden then in Denmark and thanks to the bridge that connects Sweden and Denmark it is very easy to move over now so right now there is a problem with apartments since danish people are buying up all the apartments and are willing to pay alot more then Swedish people(again, swedish apartments are far big, nicer and cheaper then the danish counterparts).

[Jolt]

I typed 'socialism' into Google and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)agrees with me, as does the first (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism)few dictionary sites I found, including the Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism), and the first socialism website (http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/Articles/nutshell.htm) that showed up, and the first economics website (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html) that showed up, and the world socialism movement (http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php) seems to agree more with me as well. :shrug:


Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other.

Curiously though, most sites I saw are closely conotated with Marxist Socialism, rather than Social Democratism, which is what is done in Europe. And indeed the utopical Socialism is to end the differences of wealth (Surely you too would see it as a nice ideal, no?), the problem is that that is all theory, and while it would be good that Socialism worked the way it is written in the WSM sites, the problem is that it doesn't, and therefore applicable Socialism works nowhere near what the First Economics Website claims to be Socialism, (It is ridiculous to see Lenin and Stalin being called Socialists, in modern standards.) and indeed the sole example of "Socialism" of that economics site is...The Soviet Union!!??? It is no wonder that you think Socialism is Communism if you read those stupid definitions of what Socialism is. Continuing on the point I left, the definitions that seem to agree with you are either the definitions of early Socialism (e.g. Marxist Socialism, which is a moderate form of Marxism-Leninism/Communism), or definitions which are wrong.

In a nutshell, here's what modern Socialism promotes (So you have a more informed view of what Socialism is):

- A mixed economy consisting mainly of private enterprise, but with government owned or subsidized programs of education, healthcare, child care and related services for all citizens.
- Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.
- Advocacy of fair trade over free trade.
- An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by other socialist groups), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
- Moderate to high levels of taxation (through a value-added and/or progressive taxation system) to fund government expenditure.

Now let's not hope you come again saying Socialists want to nationalize and control everything in their path.
EDIT: I'm sure HoreTore and other Europeans can quickly come to corroborate that this is the Socialism that is practiced in Europe.


I see. Here in the US, we have laws against age discrimination. I'm not sure how effective they are.

My point being that the efficiency of those laws is at the very best, laughable. For the most obvious of reasons.

[Tribesman]

tribesy; have fun on your trip to irrelevenceville.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So you can't read then as well as being unable to understand
Oh looky , from your posted article......
It will cost at least $32 billion to build another three upgrading units and take some five years,
hmmmm interesting eh ....posted by me .......what is the date that venezuela has put on new production ? you know new production as in new expanded production after a big outlay lots of development and lots and lots and lots of foriegn investment ? .. errrrrr you didn't answer that did you Rabbit ...and again..... after all its not like the plans for the development of the belt have been discussed here about half a dozen times already , or the new contracts , or the new tanker fleet , terminals and pipelines .

But OK I know you can't grasp it , but hey have an easy one , maybe you can do some simple sums .....really simple sums .
If a project is slated to be developed in 1012 and it is now 2008 how many more years is it expected to take ? (have a clue as even something that simple might be beyond your ability , the answer is in the post you made:yes:)
But there is something you are completely missing as is the writer of that article , as of course that plan does not envisage pumping more oil from the existing fields , they still want to further reduce that output to both keep the reserves and fiddle the market along with the cartel to ensure maximum revenue , this is to open new reserves and new markets....a bit like their other plan for new sources and new markets that the US blocked by threatening the economies of other countries that were part of the deal , but in this case the belt project involves countries that the US cannot threaten much ....especially as their ideology has given them a screwed economy and crazy global commitments that they cannot come through on yet can't get out of .

So to sum up in simple terms that you may be able to just about grab the basics of ...they have cut production because they cut production , they are further cutting production because they are further cutting production . They are not going for the 3 upgrades on the existing production because they are opening up an entirely new development for a new market that is putting up the cash while on their existing facilities they will still seek a further reduction in output(if the rest of Opec also agree of course ...which is very likely)

[Koga No Goshi]

Socialism isn't one thing, CR. Like christianity, it has branched out in a ton of ways.

Yup. I could look up textbook "conservativism" and I would most likely NOT read a description of how neocon Republicans have acted in the last 8 years. Yet plenty of people who vote Republican call themselves conservatives.

This seems like a semantic argument more than a substantive one that CR is making.

[Banquo's Ghost]

...maybe you can do some simple sums .....really simple sums .
If a project is slated to be developed in 1012 and it is now 2008 how many more years is it expected to take ?

Hmm. My abacus says that it's been finished for nearly a thousand years or its an Irish government project that's "slipped". :wink:

Moral: If you're going to be beastly about people's intelligence, try not to post when drunk.

[Viking]

If a project is slated to be developed in 1012 and it is now 2008 how many more years is it expected to take ? (have a clue as even something that simple might be beyond your ability , the answer is in the post you made:yes:


Hmm. My abacus says that it's been finished for nearly a thousand years or its an Irish government project that's "slipped". :wink:

Moral: If you're going to be beastly about people's intelligence, try not to post when drunk.

I'm pretty certain that there's a reference to the theory of relativity and time dilation lurking in there somewhere. :laugh4:

[yesdachi]

Well after reading the rest of this thread I am convinced that Sweden has been taken over by foreigners and for some nefarious reason they are attempting to trick the rest of the world into thinking that the native Swedes are still in control. I don’t have proof but I’ve got my eye on you.
:laugh4: :kiss2:

[Ice]

Hmm. My abacus says that it's been finished for nearly a thousand years or its an Irish government project that's "slipped". :wink:

Moral: If you're going to be beastly about people's intelligence, try not to post when drunk.

Would you mind if sigged (probably not a word) the moral part? It's nothing personal against Tribesman, I just find that particular line funny.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Would you mind if sigged (probably not a word) the moral part? It's nothing personal against Tribesman, I just find that particular line funny.

You are welcome. Tribesman likes my texts for his signature too. :wink3: