Desperate Times and Desperate Deeds

**Vladimir** · 01-15-2009, 19:52

We all know the saying that desperate times call for desperate deeds. An example we’ve discussed is the desperate attempt by U.S. policymakers to stave off depression by socialistic means. Many Americans say this is a rejection of our fundamental capitalist principles. Well, the rub lays both ways:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/...ca/15venez.php

Chávez reopens oil bids to West as prices plunge

CARACAS: President Hugo Chávez, buffeted by falling oil prices that threaten to damage his efforts to establish a Socialist-inspired state, is quietly courting Western oil companies once again.
Until recently, Chávez had pushed foreign oil companies here into a corner by nationalizing their oil fields, raiding their offices with tax authorities and imposing a series of royalties increases.
But faced with the plunge in prices and a decline in domestic production, senior officials here have begun soliciting bids from some of the largest Western oil companies in recent weeks — including Chevron, Royal Dutch/Shell and Total of France — promising them access to some of the world's largest petroleum reserves, according to energy executives and industry consultants here.

It’s wise not to bite the hand that feeds you. Are Western oil companies once bitten, twice shy?

**Fisherking** · 01-15-2009, 20:06

I figure some of them will bite.

What is that about the Capitalists selling the rope they are hung with. Never underestimate corporate greed.

Many of these companies have a tendency to be extremely short sighted and may even get burned again…

**Vladimir** · 01-15-2009, 20:12

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Many of these companies have a tendency to be extremely short sighted and may even get burned again…

Wasn't that also Chavez's problem? Corporations are considered persons for several reasons.

**drone** · 01-15-2009, 20:43

The referendum that could possibly make Chavez president-for-life has just been approved and will probably be voted on by the public Feb 15th. I imagine some companies will wait to see if they will have to deal with him beyond 2012.

Of course, even if it fails like the last one, he can just keep retrying constitutional referendums until one passes.

**Tribesman** · 01-15-2009, 20:55

Wow all of the companies that didn't pull out of venezuela so they could still bid for involvement in the belt might be bidding for involvement in the belt .
I am shocked I tell ya really shocked .

**Fragony** · 01-15-2009, 21:49

They will probably keep watching achother very closily for a while. Ah well, funny how a market crash never crossed his revolutionary anti-capitalist mind. Sitting on oil is great fun, do they have any other export besides miss univers's?

**Spino** · 01-20-2009, 20:41

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Wow all of the companies that didn't pull out of venezuela so they could still bid for involvement in the belt might be bidding for involvement in the belt .
I am shocked I tell ya really shocked .

Business is business, money knows no bias.

I think it's great that a leftist, populist 'revolutionary' needs to have his assets saved by a bunch of capitalist pigs.

**Guildenstern** · 01-15-2009, 23:12

Resource-rich but cash-poor countries need the technologies that foreign international investors have. The big oil companies have to offer systems management, integrated solutions and experience of large technologies. So these partnerships make good sense. In return, international companies need not just to be paid but to have some component of ownership. But in many resource-rich countries that ownership is precisely the rub. They say, "come in and bring money and we will be in charge".

So I think that might deter some companies from investing, but others may still see an opportunity to make a profit. I think the big oil companies will sign short-term contracts to service the oilfields of the resource-rich countries. Those contracts are meant to lay the groundwork for future investment. Oil companies have to ask themselves whether the conditions will allow for a reasonable profit. That's one of the major risks.

Given the technical realities, fewer countries may be able to nationalize their industries. The tide may not be exactly turning toward denationalization either, and the political risks make investment tricky. However, oil companies have to make a profit for their shareholders, and have to make sure the deals are seen in their favor. If they think they can make it and overcome the risks, they will go ahead.

**rasoforos** · 01-17-2009, 04:14

The reality is:

Governments know that economic moderation is vital to achieve a healthy economy. You cannot go 'Adam Smith' capitalist and you cannot go 'Friedrich Engels' communist nowadays. Mixed economies are the way to go and they fare much better on crises.

But what really happens is:

Your average Joe knows almost nothing about economic theory. He buys the 'less taxes - more taxes' nonsense and has a vague view as to why 'capitalism' or 'socialism' is the best system.

During the cold war, government used economically radical views for political reasons. People have been buying that for decades and it kept them quiet. However this restricts the available options on economic policy

Now however that the hit the fan, capitalist economies that lack the proper economic procedures to assist struggling businesses end up being forced to nationalise. Socialist economies that lack the competitive forces that would allow them to diversify are held hostage to price fluctuations and end up trying to attract private initiative.

This is why the US is now a bunch of Socialist commies and Hugo is a Capitalist Pig that extorts the hardworking Proletariat in the name of his Imperialist masters