Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
A bit? He's attempting, and will probably suceed, in getting the the national assembly to grant him powers to decree laws on his own. That is a very scary for the future of democracy in Venezuela, but if the Venezuelan people want that, who am I to judge. After all, he was elected democratically.Originally Posted by Scurvy
exactly, although i agree he's losing it a bit, theres nothing wrong with this...
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
You're talking about something completely different to what Scurvy was commenting on. Scurvy was saying there's nothing wrong in nationalising energy industries. Most of the British population would probably prefer our national infrastructure to be nationalised, as it would run (and has run) more efficiently than the privatised mish-mash we have now.A bit? He's attempting, and will probably suceed, in getting the the national assembly to grant him powers to decree laws on his own. That is a very scary for the future of democracy in Venezuela, but if the Venezuelan people want that, who am I to judge. After all, he was elected democratically.
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
I must have misunderstood him then. I took when he said "he's losing it a bit" to mean hes becoming a bit overauthorative.
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
Well, he called Bush the devil so he cant be that bad
"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." - Issac Newton
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
1 It's theftFirstly there is nothing wrong with nationalizing energy companies.
2 It will decrease efficiency
3 It will drive out all foreign investment
4 It will hurt the economy
5 It decreases freedom, economic and otherwise
6 It increases the power of a soon to be dictator
Etc.
Oh, and yes, we conservatives have basically been calling this for years (I wonder what JAG has to say). I can't wait till the price of oil drops.
Crazed Rabbit
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
Our experience of privatising national infrastructure is that we have to pay more for a worse service. Where there can be several competitors in a single area, the market will drive prices down and efficiency up. Where companies bid for what are effectively temporary monopolies, there is little incentive to raise efficiency and lower prices. Instead, they try to extract as much money from the customers as they can until their contract runs out. And if the government breaks up the system in order to limit the size of the monopoly, the companies can't raise efficiency even if they wanted to, as they'll have to negotiate with other companies dealing with a different part of the chain who have different requirements from them, in a system that was designed to work as a single entity.
The result? We pay almost as much in subsidies as we used to do in taxes, and the companies impose an extra surcharge on top to ensure profits. The overall tax burden is not noticeably reduced, and the customers have to pay a lot more than they used to. And because the system has been broken up, it doesn't run as efficiently as it used to either, meaning much higher prices for a worse service. Some industries are naturally monopolies, and as such nationalisation is less bad than privatisation.
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
What is ?1 It's theft
It could be said that the privatisation of the nationalised industries for a pittance leaving the tax payers(owners) with all the debts and the new investors with all the assets (with the help of a few nice bribes) was the theft Rabbit .
Not neccesarily2 It will decrease efficiency
Wasn't his recent world tour done with the purpose of securing investment from other countries to push through the programs .3 It will drive out all foreign investment
Not neccesarily , keeping a larger share of the revenue in the country can aid the economy.4 It will hurt the economy
Possibly5 It decreases freedom, economic and otherwise
Luckily they have a constitution (you know the one the failed coup abolished as its first move) which prevents that .6 It increases the power of a soon to be dictator
To amend the constitution first he has to get the 2/3 votes in parliament (unfortunately no problem since the opposition boycotted the election ) but then it has to go to a nationwide vote by the citizens for approval .
So yes , he could become a dictator , if the citizens democratically vote for a dictatorship .
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
Were Venezuela's soon-to-be-nationalized companies privatised recently? Seeing as some of them are owned by foreign companies, I think not.
But very, very likely. He wants socialism, which is not renowned for efficiency.Not neccesarily
Companies don't get large and able to invest in foreign countries by being stupid, and they know actions speak louder than words.Wasn't his recent world tour done with the purpose of securing investment from other countries to push through the programs .
Foreign investment will fall, revenue from nationalized companies will fall, and Chavez is going to be the one getting the money.Not neccesarily , keeping a larger share of the revenue in the country can aid the economy.
Rather likely, I'd say.Possibly
Really? Chavez doesn't seem to put a lot of weight into that document, and stuff like term limits, which used to be mandated by the consitution.Luckily they have a constitution (you know the one the failed coup abolished as its first move) which prevents that .
To amend the constitution first he has to get the 2/3 votes in parliament (unfortunately no problem since the opposition boycotted the election ) but then it has to go to a nationwide vote by the citizens for approval .
So yes , he could become a dictator , if the citizens democratically vote for a dictatorship .
Crazed Rabbit
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
1. It isn't theft. Some areas of the economy just can't be left into the hands of private investors. If someone bought the Golden Gate bridge and decided to impose on you a fee for crossing it every time just because it's "private propriety" would a private transport network have anything to do with freedom?
2. Not exactly. Remember, it's the time of market we're talking about. If you privatize a company that has monopoly you create a trust and that is as anti-efficient as state control in that particular sector.
3. Foreign investment sometimes needs to be channeled. You don't want to become dependant on foreign enterprises. A national economy controlled by off-shore companies is politically vulnerable.
4. Re-nationalizing some key areas of the economy where there wasn't any competition isn't bad at all. At least prices now can be influienced in a way by the avarage consumer.
5. It doesn't decrease economic freedom. If you don't have to pay as much for energy you have more money to spend and thus you can become an investor yourself. If there's anything that can limit your freedom, that would be the price you have to pay for your bills.
6. Not exactly, if those companies are given to the local councils to manage.
" If you don't want me, I want you! Alexandru Lapusneanul"
"They are a stupid mob, but neverless they are a mob! Alexandru Lapusneanul"
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
Taking things from people against their will is theft.1. It isn't theft. Some areas of the economy just can't be left into the hands of private investors. If someone bought the Golden Gate bridge and decided to impose on you a fee for crossing it every time just because it's "private propriety" would a private transport network have anything to do with freedom?
The nationalized companies weren't monopolies, remember, we're talking about Venezuela, not the UK.2. Not exactly. Remember, it's the time of market we're talking about. If you privatize a company that has monopoly you create a trust and that is as anti-efficient as state control in that particular sector.
Channeled? Says who? Not good economics, that's for sure.3. Foreign investment sometimes needs to be channeled. You don't want to become dependant on foreign enterprises. A national economy controlled by off-shore companies is politically vulnerable.
Yes, it is - government is almost always less efficient than private companies, and the prices certainly aren't going to be influenced by consumers - they are going to be controlled by Chavez.4. Re-nationalizing some key areas of the economy where there wasn't any competition isn't bad at all. At least prices now can be influienced in a way by the avarage consumer.
Yes, it does - the property of people is taken from them for supposedly economical reasons, and people have less overall freedom to run a business as they see fit.5. It doesn't decrease economic freedom. If you don't have to pay as much for energy you have more money to spend and thus you can become an investor yourself. If there's anything that can limit your freedom, that would be the price you have to pay for your bills.
Haha! You think they will be? Either way, who do you think controls the local councils?6. Not exactly, if those companies are given to the local councils to manage.
Crazed Rabbit
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
Oh well I gave a fair chance to reconsider.
time to say Rabbit is talking some rubbish .
Were Venezuela's soon-to-be-nationalized companies privatised recently? Seeing as some of them are owned by foreign companies, I think not.
You think wrong .
Take the first from the article , state owned until privatisation 15 years ago , shortly after privatisation (for a knock down price) it became the target for a take over by a foriegn company .
Ah yes , that was a response to the statement about the recent push for foriegn investment , could tie it in with this one as well .....Companies don't get large and able to invest in foreign countries by being stupid, and they know actions speak louder than words.....Foreign investment will fall, revenue from nationalized companies will fall, and Chavez is going to be the one getting the money.
So then Rabbit how much investment did he attract ? how much is for short term and how much for long term ? Do you know how large a range of projects the new investment covers ?
Oh and if you thought that big multi nationals wouldn't be stupid enough to invest in nationalised industries can you explain the $17 bn put in by a very big American company to a State run energy provider in Venezuela .
Hmmmm...revenue will fall , well that depends do you mean export revenue , like the new deals for exports that tie in with the new foreign investments or do you mean revenue from the domestic market?
Interesting one about domestic revenue , reducing the existing government subsidies for petroleumthats a bit of a swings and rounabouts one isn't it . No longer shall the ordinary citizen be able to get tax subsidised petrol for 14c . State owned public transport will still get the old price though .
Looky there .....state owned public transport ...how revolutionary ..... how radical .....how errrrrrr....normal .
Now I wonder which manufaturer of buses signed a deal with Venezuela to supply lots of buses ? It wouldn't be an American company by any chance would it ?
No never and especially since this crazy Latino is going to be bad for business they wouldn't possibly be setting up their own workshops and licensing arrangement down there would they"
You see Rabbit , on this particular issue Hugo (no matter what other sort of idiot he is) has learnt from the past , he saw what happened to Guatamala and Cuba with their nationalisation programs and has taken measures to avoid it .
Now would you like to address a proper problem about his program instead ?
Price fixing of agricultural produce . The method of determining effective use for the land seizures . Allocation of the siezed land before the educational programs and support infrastructure are up and running ...
Oh but I would appreciate it if you actually knew something about it before you just go off on a usual ...."but its Chavez
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
4. Re-nationalizing some key areas of the economy where there wasn't any competition isn't bad at all. At least prices now can be influienced in a way by the avarage consumer.And Chavez is appointed by who...?
Ownership of certain branches of infrastructure, like railroads and phone lines, should be state property. Exploitation should be left to private companies, IMHO.
Re: That Hugo, Tisk Tisk
Then I've misunderstood you even more than you've misunderstood him.
"A bit" is British understatement, emphasising the magnitude of the deed by de-emphasising it. Other useful terms: "A touch", "A tad", "A smidgin".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks