More Chavez hijinks Pt II...

[Kalar]

Chavez Threatens US Oil Cutoff (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UNOD3G0&show_article=1)

Associated Press Said:
President Hugo Chavez on Sunday threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States in an "economic war" if Exxon Mobil Corp. wins court judgments to seize billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets.


The best line in the article comes from the main man himself...

The People Man Him Self said:
"If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello, President." "Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger."


Say what you want to about President Bush, but this guy wins the marathon.

[Wraith]

The People Man Him Self said:
"If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello, President." "Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger."I think Danger is actually his middle name...

Chavez also threatened to seize the milk operations of Nestle and Parmalat, claiming they were causing milk shortages in the country.Friend of the People, Enemy of Chocolate said:
"It's no use for us to be setting up plants (if) then there is no milk for the plants because Parmalat or ... Nestle take it all away," Chavez said. "That's where I say this government has to tighten the screws."

If companies ensure a supply through "blackmail, offering money up front" while leaving state-run plants without enough milk, "that's called sabotage," Chavez said. He added that in such cases, "the plants must be taken over and expropriated."http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/11/news/Venezuela-Farming-Woes.php

[JediSanf]

And yet there are citizens who will defend this nutcase.

[alejandro79]

viva chaves

[Rambilin]

And yet there are citizens who will defend this nutcase.

And higher education institutions who gladly have him speak on how terrible the US is while all the little trust fund freshman who just took poly sci 101 agree and clap.

[Krispy]

What is so wrong with Chavez? He has leverage and he is threatening to use it to stop a potential hit to their economy, or am I reading this wrong? That doesn't seem like the move of a crazy man to me. More of an opportunist.

[JediSanf]

What is so wrong with Chavez? He has leverage and he is threatening to use it for to stop a potential hit to their economy, or am I reading this wrong? That doesn't seem like the move of a crazy man to me. More of an opportunist.

The problem is, he can't. Just like we can't "stop buying oil from Iran". It's a global market with many many buyers and sellers. If he stops selling to us then he sells that excess to someone else, who then doesn't buy as much oil from someone who will sell to us. It's not opportunistic, it's moronic.

[Racknahm]

t3DPDKbRxio

[JediSanf]

And higher education institutions who gladly have him speak on how terrible the US is while all the little trust fund freshman who just took poly sci 101 agree and clap.

No joke. While I was referring to Chavez's citizens who stand in his lines and can't get basic sustenance yet still cheer his policies (this was before his stunning defeat in his attempt to become a constitutional dictator), there are plenty of Americans with a fundamental misunderstanding of market forces who see big government as the only way to save people from themselves.

[Krispy]

The problem is, he can't. Just like we can't "stop buying oil from Iran". It's a global market with many many buyers and sellers. If he stops selling to us then he sells that excess to someone else, who then doesn't buy as much oil from someone who will sell to us. It's not opportunistic, it's moronic.

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that there isn't a finite amount of oil being bought by each party. Why wouldn't a rising industrial nation like China not just buy all of the oil we would normally be purchasing and then keep purchasing the same amount of oil it was from some place else? I suppose the increase in demand from the US would drive oil prices from other vendors up though, possibly negating the reward. Hmmm, elastic price markets are complex.

[H1PO]

The problem is, he can't. Just like we can't "stop buying oil from Iran". It's a global market with many many buyers and sellers. If he stops selling to us then he sells that excess to someone else, who then doesn't buy as much oil from someone who will sell to us. It's not opportunistic, it's moronic.Its not moronic. He's trying to make a point. He doesn't want to be the bitch of American capitalism. He doesn't want to take shit that would hurt his economy. He's standing up for his country.

[JediSanf]

Its not moronic. He's trying to make a point. He doesn't want to be the bitch of American capitalism. He doesn't want to take shit that would hurt his economy. He's standing up for his country.

Fair enough. As a rallying point against us it may work (I doubt it, but the possibility exists). As economic policy it is... impotent.

[Gilius Thunderhead]

And if he actually takes over the Nestle and Parmalat (Never heard of them. What do they do?) factories--property of U.S. citizens--history has shown that U.S. troops will soon be in place to rectify his mistake.

[Schnoogs]

And yet there are citizens who will defend this nutcase.

There are forum members who will defend him...

not saying any names either VVVVVV

[Schnoogs]

Its not moronic. He's trying to make a point. He doesn't want to be the bitch of American capitalism. He doesn't want to take shit that would hurt his economy. He's standing up for his country.

I can tell you're totally unfamiliar with Chavez and any of his previous remarks. :rolleyes:

[H1PO]

I can tell you're totally unfamiliar with Chavez and any of his previous remarks. :rolleyes:
I am actually. I knew he was a socialist, but that was about it.

[cp#]

t3DPDKbRxio

Oh now I see

[Superman's Dead]

And if he actually takes over the Nestle and Parmalat (Never heard of them. What do they do?) factories--property of U.S. citizens--history has shown that U.S. troops will soon be in place to rectify his mistake.

God-damned right.

We care deeply about our foreign chocolate.

Everything else he does might be crazy, or might not be. But...if I ran a country that had a milk shortage and was also turning out billions of milk chocolate bars, I can see how it should probably turn out well for everyone.

Nestle just gets into the dark chocolate market.

[DarkDaY]

"storms a brewin" *says abe at the bottom of the pool* "storms a brewin"

[H1PO]

God-damned right.

We care deeply about our foreign chocolate.

Everything else he does might be crazy, or might not be. But...if I ran a country that had a milk shortage and was also turning out billions of milk chocolate bars, I can see how it should probably turn out well for everyone.

Nestle just gets into the dark chocolate market.
Epic lulz.

[Deadend]

God-damned right.

We care deeply about our foreign chocolate.

Everything else he does might be crazy, or might not be. But...if I ran a country that had a milk shortage and was also turning out billions of milk chocolate bars, I can see how it should probably turn out well for everyone.

Nestle just gets into the dark chocolate market.

What US troops? I thought that most of them were overseas already.

Chavez is kinda funny to me, even though I know he is a terrible leader who relies on populist speech while doing nothing useful and posturing. He is a drama queen.

[TrackZero]

What is so wrong with Chavez? He has leverage and he is threatening to use it to stop a potential hit to their economy, or am I reading this wrong? That doesn't seem like the move of a crazy man to me. More of an opportunist.

He's a smart man in his position, it's just a shame he isn't on America's side.

[Heretic Machine]

This guy is the most weak-sauce Bond villain, ever.

[Johan]

There are forum members who will defend him...

Insanity and stupidity are not stopped by national borders or linguistic divides. :D

[Opsin]

Defend him? Well, only insofar as to say 'seize billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets'.... What rights do Exxon have to that? More than the Venezuelans?
Yes, Chavez does himself no favours with his rhetoric, but he was almost killed in a coup started by the CIA, and now this kind of shit. While I have no time for dictators, I also have no time for the way the US treats Venezuela and Cuba, countries who aren't a threat to the US, but who have such heavy sanctions imposed on them now that they can barely function. Maybe that is a sign for Castro and Chavez to step down, but that would only serve to have America steal all the worth of these countries again.

*sigh*

[Johan]

...he was almost killed in a coup started by the CIA...

http://ipl.pipnet.com/eggs/koolaid-large.jpg

In related news, a local US Postal Service employee was arrested for murder. Damn federal government, subsidizing murder!

In other news a child protective services officer was arrested for abusing children. Damn state government, subsidizing child abuse!

Finally, a US soldier was arrested for abusing detainees. Damn US military, subsidizing abuse of detainees!

[Opsin]

You do realise, Chavez had done nothing wrong at the point where the US went after him? He nationalised Venezuela's oil industry, cutting the US out so as to make money for his citizens, and so the US started a coup. How the fuck is that justified by your pathetic, obtuse little statements? Ugh...

Screw it, I don't care. Every thread even vaguely political or theological here is filled with people refusing to think or consider facts. Which is sad. Great gaming news, but the rest I shall go back to ignoring.

[Slack3r78]

He's a smart man in his position, it's just a shame he isn't on America's side.

He's not on America's side because the Bush administration has done about everything in their power to alienate him, including endorsing the failed coup attempt in its early hours (whether or not you think the US government had any hand in instigating the coup).

The long and short of it is that while Chavez may be pursuing policies that are quite a bit naive and not necessarily in Venezuela's best long-term interests, he is hugely popular among the poor population of Venezuela, and the rhetoric that's been directed at him by the Bush administration has done nothing to help US-Venezuelan relations or the people on the ground in his country.

[Johan]

He nationalised Venezuela's oil industry, cutting the US out so as to make money for his citizens

I'm no defender of big businesses and rampant, unrestrained capitalism, but I'm also not in the business of defending "making money" by stealing it from others. :D

You can defend that, if you wish.

...and so the US started a coup.

Taking your talking points from Chavez? Got....evidence?


How the fuck is that justified by your pathetic, obtuse little statements? Ugh...

http://gallery.mtbr.com/data/mtbr/500/thumbs/whaaambulance.jpg

Every thread even vaguely political or theological here is filled with people refusing to think or consider facts.

If you'd care to...you know...SHARE SOME FACTS, rather than your own OPINION, you'd find a warmer reception perhaps.

See, here's a fact: You provided no evidence of your accusation that the CIA instigated a coup.

Here's another fact: Taking from others is theft.

Here's another fact: I like ice cream. It's based upon my opinion of the food, but it is indeed a fact about me.

[Heretic Machine]

Defend him? Well, only insofar as to say 'seize billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets'.... What rights do Exxon have to that? More than the Venezuelans?
Yes, Chavez does himself no favours with his rhetoric, but he was almost killed in a coup started by the CIA, and now this kind of shit. While I have no time for dictators, I also have no time for the way the US treats Venezuela and Cuba, countries who aren't a threat to the US, but who have such heavy sanctions imposed on them now that they can barely function. Maybe that is a sign for Castro and Chavez to step down, but that would only serve to have America steal all the worth of these countries again.

*sigh*

They are trying to seize Venezuelan assets in other countries because Venezuela nationalized all of Exxon's holdings in Venezuela.

You do realise, Chavez had done nothing wrong at the point where the US went after him? He nationalised Venezuela's oil industry, cutting the US out so as to make money for his citizens, and so the US started a coup. How the fuck is that justified by your pathetic, obtuse little statements? Ugh...

Screw it, I don't care. Every thread even vaguely political or theological here is filled with people refusing to think or consider facts. Which is sad. Great gaming news, but the rest I shall go back to ignoring.

If we nationalized all property owned by Japanese or Chinese companies in the US, do you think that Japan and China would be cool with that?

[Slack3r78]

Taking your talking points from Chavez? Got....evidence?
I more or less agree with this. I'm not really convinced that the US had a direct hand in instigating the coup. There's enough home-grown resentment of Chavez among the wealthy and elite in Venezuela for them to have kicked that off just fine on their own. The way that Venezuelan TV was used to aggravate things is a good sign that the coup went deeper than anything US intelligence would be likely to have pulled off on their own.

That said, the US did endorse the coup pretty much as it happened. I still find it hilarious that the coup failed largely because the people usurping power were foolish enough to leave Chavez's guards in place at the presidential estate.

If anyone's not seen it, the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is pretty fantastic, if a bit sympathetic to Chavez. It was made by some filmmakers who coincidentally happened to be doing a story on Chavez right as the coup attempt happened. Regardless of your feelings on Chavez, it's a pretty extraordinary film in that you get about as close to watching a coup happen as you can get without participating in it yourself.

[Opsin]

Thankyou Slack3r, that was the documentary to which I was referring. And Johan, do you realise how lame posting pictures in your retort makes you? Please... And not like you provide much in the way of evidence for any of your arguments. So don't be so quick to jump on that horse.

Fine, I was misunderstanding what he is doing now, and concede (to a degree) that what he is doing is 'stealing' from the US. Kind of. But it is all linked to the fact that the US took their usual view when he nationalised the oil industry. You think you can blame the Bay of Pigs on Castro? Yea, it was to get him out of power, but it was a catastrophe.
As I said, I agree that Chavez has to go. He isn't playing a democratic game with his own country, and that is unforgivable. I don't however think it anyone should be so quick to forgive Bush and his government (and to be - ick - fair, those before his) for the way they interfere with other countries.

I'm not sure I feel that Exxon have the rights to anything from Venezuela. They will have gained those assets at a time when there was no one in Venezuela to stand up for them being taken! How is that fair? And did Exxon not just post yearly profits higher than pretty much any other company anywhere? Certainly BP did over here. We are paying more for oil than ever before, and yet it's the oil companies making higher profits than ever. That's just awesome for us, eh?

I'm not disagreeing with the core point about Chavez, and the fact that he is making everything worse for his country. But it's not black and white. There are grey areas around how the US foreign policy treats countries rich in oil and weak in government. No?

[Slack3r78]

And Johan, do you realise how lame posting pictures in your retort makes you? Please...
Heh, your post count is showing. ;)

[CoachCrazyMcScot]

So which "villain" do you root for? The billion dollar company waving profits in your face, or the South American wannabe dictator who wants to be the next Castro, running his own version of OPEC?

Oh, and the milk and chocolate thing is typical Chavez, anyways. See the little man grab at straws...

[Opsin]

Heh, your post count is showing. ;)

Yea, I've seen it an awful lot round here... But come on, try that in a debate! Oh wait, a bunch of senators/congress did when discussing stem cell research a while back.
"This drawing of an egg, by a child, clearly shows the egg to have a soul. Therefore, I win!"

*sigh*


But yea, I guess my point is, they're both evil fucks who need to keep their grubby hands away from it. Instead of the thread's opening stance saying nothing about the other side of this situation. Nothing in politics is black and white, but seems to get discussed on this forum like it is. I have no problem admitting the evils Britain carries out, so I don't put it down to nationalism and nothing else...

[Slack3r78]

Yea, I've seen it an awful lot round here... But come on, try that in a debate! Oh wait, a bunch of senators/congress did when discussing stem cell research a while back.
"This drawing of an egg, by a child, clearly shows the egg to have a soul. Therefore, I win!"

*sigh*

I was mostly referring to the fact that you've not been around long enough to become acquainted with Johan's rather unique forum personality. ;)

[Opsin]

Oh I see, yea. I lurked long enough before that too, and yet...
To be honest, I'm mostly just having an angry day it seems. Sorry.

[Wraith]

And if he actually takes over the Nestle and Parmalat (Never heard of them. What do they do?) factories--property of U.S. citizens--history has shown that U.S. troops will soon be in place to rectify his mistake.I don't know the specifics of their corporate ownership/operations, but they're actually Swiss and Italian corporations, respectively.Fine, I was misunderstanding what he is doing now, and concede (to a degree) that what he is doing is 'stealing' from the US. Kind of. But it is all linked to the fact that the US took their usual view when he nationalised the oil industry.

...

I'm not sure I feel that Exxon have the rights to anything from Venezuela. They will have gained those assets at a time when there was no one in Venezuela to stand up for them being taken! How is that fair? And did Exxon not just post yearly profits higher than pretty much any other company anywhere? Certainly BP did over here. We are paying more for oil than ever before, and yet it's the oil companies making higher profits than ever. That's just awesome for us, eh?How is it "kind of" stealing, and not "100% blatantly obvious" stealing? I haven't read into the situation, but isn't it basically him saying "what's yours is now mine, bugger off"? Billions of dollars of investment in land and infrastructure gone overnight?

Isn't that wrong, regardless of whose companies were stolen from or how much profits they made?

[Opsin]

How is it "kind of" stealing, and not "100% blatantly obvious" stealing?


As I say, it's shrouded in grey. For lack of a better word, yes, it's stealing. I agree with that much. But as I say, how did Exxon end up with these assets? If there's proof that the people of Venezuela want an American company to own all these assets, fine, but I doubt that is or was ever the case.

I already commented on how BP and Exxon have just posted obscene profits, in a time when oil is prohibitively expensive for all uses, causing food price hikes and myriad other effects. Is it at all fair for these companies to be posting such profits when the majority of people are taking the sting from it?

Again, it isn't all black and white.

The best thing for all would probably be for Chavez to get lost, but I get the feeling whoever would take over would just be a handpuppet to the US and all the money would be syphoned off again. Elections aren't always fair. Thus, for the good of the population of Venezuela, I don't think it's as easy as Chavez leaving.

I mean, it would by these definitions be stealing for a country to go in and take oil or anything natural of worth, and then not pay fairly for it...

[MJBuddy]

I'm really sick an tired of "woe is me" posters bitching about big business and how they screw the little man.


You know jack shit about Business, Globalization, or Economic situations.


Go learn what an inelastic good is. Go. Wikipedia. Then come back, and see if you can predict the future.


Stop complaining about profit - it's dumb. You're not being exploited by anyone but yourself, and neither are any "victims" of big business.

[torrefaction]

I feel bad for you Opsin. You're new, and trying to make reasoned arguments with Johan. Don't. There are many forum members here that will actually debate with you on the merits of your arguments, and not simply trying to poke holes in your arguments. Johan is not one of these people.

That out of the way, you have to look at how Chavez started to understand America's reactions. We're not talking about a bastion of logic here. This is the man who insisted that Pandemic's Mercenaries 2 was a US based plot to force the idea of war in Venezuala. I've got a good friend at work from Venezuala, used to love his country. Now he's not sure if he'll ever go back, due to the rapid devolution of infrastructure (and safety) there. I've actually got another coworker that says the same thing. The hate they both have for him is nothing short of vehement, as they watch him dismantle their country.

I have no sympathy for any arguments about Coups, US led or others. This is a man who led a violent military coup (Pretty much the worst kind, if you ask me.) against his own country, and failed. More civilians than soldiers where hurt in the clash. I find it hilarious that he bases his political philosophy on Bolivar's, but couldn't be any further from the ideals that Bolivar admired. He talks one way, and acts another.

Bolívar's many speeches and writings reveal him to be an adherent of limited government, the separation of powers, freedom of religion, property rights, and the rule of law.

He's a liar, and a pillager of his people. He ran on one platform, then issued the Enabling act, taking authoritarian control of the government.

Bolivar would roll in his grave if he knew what Chavez had done in his name.

[gzsfrk]

I already commented on how BP and Exxon have just posted obscene profits, in a time when oil is prohibitively expensive for all uses, causing food price hikes and myriad other effects. Is it at all fair for these companies to be posting such profits when the majority of people are taking the sting from it?

Again, it isn't all black and white.


Well aren't you an odd beast? You say "it isn't all black and white", but you seem to have no problem effortlessly shifting from a black and white perspective ("The US is bad--they meddle in other countries bizness!") to a gray scale ("kind of stealing").

Strangely enough, Chavez's stealing and nationalizing all foreign-owned oil assets had no effect on reducing the market price of crude. If anything, the instability it introduced into their supply chain caused global prices to climb even higher. What you're saying is akin to me proclaiming that, since mortgage rates are high, I'm going to rob a bunch of banks... for the peoples!!! Huh-wha?

But your young age is showing, and that's OK. Once you get a bit older, you'll likely lose a lot of the idealism of youth that so often blinds us to reality. Being liberal is fine; you run with that. There's even some merit to being an idealist--America was built by people with dreams. But don't be a blind idealist--it's all but guaranteed failure.

Chavez is a garbage, self-aggrandizing, self-serving, self-defined messiah who is an attention whore and lives to satisfy his own ego, despite the fact that he has a chronic inferiority complex.

As for his popularity amongst "teh people"--well... it's a bit easier to rally the people to your cause when you control ALL media outlets which are constantly blaring out that the problems of the people are due to the evil capitalists, particularly the "Devil" sitting on his throne in the US, while simultaneously suppressing any criticism of the sitting government. Early Soviet Russia did the same thing quite effectively for many years (and have, frighteningly enough, been doing it again under Putin) until after several decades of living in a crap economy that the people finally started to suspect that just maybe it wasn't the evil Americans who were chiefly behind their hardship.

[Wraith]

As I say, it's shrouded in grey. For lack of a better word, yes, it's stealing. I agree with that much. But as I say, how did Exxon end up with these assets? If there's proof that the people of Venezuela want an American company to own all these assets, fine, but I doubt that is or was ever the case.Why should what the people want have any influence in this? If the people of America wanted free tacos every day, does that mean justice is served by the government forcing Taco Bell to give out free tacos to every American? Should the government have the right to take over all the Taco Bells if the people don't want a huge multinational corporation selling them tacos?

If Exxon and others legally acquired rights to drill in Venezuela, invested in land, workers, and infrastructure to do that drilling, why does the country have any right to take everything the company's bought and built there, giving nothing in return?I already commented on how BP and Exxon have just posted obscene profits, in a time when oil is prohibitively expensive for all uses, causing food price hikes and myriad other effects. Is it at all fair for these companies to be posting such profits when the majority of people are taking the sting from it?

Again, it isn't all black and white.And I already commented, asking why does it matter? If a corporation all of a sudden makes too much money, they forfeit the right to their assets?The best thing for all would probably be for Chavez to get lost, but I get the feeling whoever would take over would just be a handpuppet to the US and all the money would be syphoned off again. Elections aren't always fair. Thus, for the good of the population of Venezuela, I don't think it's as easy as Chavez leaving.

I mean, it would by these definitions be stealing for a country to go in and take oil or anything natural of worth, and then not pay fairly for it...You make it sound like Exxon traded some beads to Venezuelan natives some years ago and then proceeded to "siphon" all the wealth from the country. Is that how it worked? Did oil companies operate without any ongoing payment to the country of Venezuela for the resources they consumed? I'd be really surprised if that was the case.

[Slack3r78]

I have no sympathy for any arguments about Coups, US led or others. This is a man who led a violent military coup (Pretty much the worst kind, if you ask me.) against his own country, and failed. More civilians than soldiers where hurt in the clash.

Not disagreeing with the rest, but things weren't exactly peaceful before the coup attempts against Pèrez:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Andr%C3%A9s_P%C3%A9rez#Second_term_as_presi dent

[Johan]

I feel bad for you Opsin. You're new, and trying to make reasoned arguments with Johan. Don't. There are many forum members here that will actually debate with you on the merits of your arguments, and not simply trying to poke holes in your arguments. Johan is not one of these people.

Ha!

Asking for proof/evidence is apparently disapproved of here at EvAv. I shall file that away for future reference!

Tool. :D

P.S.-My evidence is my post, requesting evidence, and yours, stating it's apparently unnecessary!

[torrefaction]

Ha!

Asking for proof/evidence is apparently disapproved of here at EvAv. I shall file that away for future reference!

Tool. :D

P.S.-My evidence is my post, requesting evidence, and yours, stating it's apparently unnecessary!

Johan's second favorite tactic?

Misinterpreting your words and stating a position that you don't hold.

And then insulting you.

[Johan]

Johan's second favorite tactic?

Misinterpreting your words and stating a position that you don't hold.

So what exactly was the problem with my post? The fact that I requested PROOF was a problem? Or the fact that I rightfully mocked his inability to provide any proof of his ridiculous assertions?

You misinterpreted my words, as all I did was just that: Ask for proof, and mock the lack thereof.

You deserve mockery for doing to my posts (misinterpret) what you state I have done to yours.

[muddi900]

Isn't that wrong, regardless of whose companies were stolen from or how much profits they made?

They belong to the "people" now.

Thats why nobody like socialism now. Not even the Chinese. The "people" get to have all the fun.

[gzsfrk]

They belong to the "government" now.

Thats why power-hungry governments like socialism now. Especially the Chinese. The "government" gets to have all the fun.

Your original statement left me cross-eyed. I rewrote it in a way that didn't make my teeth ache.

As for China, I suppose it's not fair to say that they still love all aspects of socialism. They're still in love with the complete domination over the people that communism facilitates, but they also can't seem to get enough of the tasty economic growth that capitalism provides.

Best of both worlds, as far as the ruling political forces of China is concerned. Hannah Montana should be so lucky!

[H1PO]

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/2717/tehepiclulzbm8.png
I love google ads. I think they're more entertaining than most television.

[torrefaction]

@Opsin:

Here's the big flaw in the arguments about oil prices. Everyone cries foul when prices are high, but no one cares when prices are low and oil companies are posting losses. Oil requires huge investments and R&D to get oil out of deeper parts of the ocean, rebuilding platforms lost in Katrina, etc, etc.

They're a business, and one who recognizes that oil is, if you take the long view, in an extremely risky position. So yeah, they post these profits now. But they know that in the long term their business is in danger due to alternative technologies and political climate.

Potentially, high profits for oil companies could resort in better and cleaner technologies coming down the pipeline. This is how capitalism has always worked. Sometimes the gains do come at the expense of someone. Yes, it is possible that production has intentionally been reduced, but OPEC doesn't help this at all, with their arbitrary determination of production levels. Oil prices are a complicated thing.

It's a strong commodity cycle, determined by supply and demand. I'm not defending all of this. It could turn out that the companies are acting in bad faith, and not concerned only with profits. But there's a lot to take into account, and it's not as simple as them being the big bad oil barons.

Here's some perspective:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702399.html

A $9.9 billion quarterly profit is mostly a function of Exxon Mobil's size. It had sales of $100 billion this quarter, more than any other U.S. company. At its current rate of growth, Exxon Mobil will be the biggest U.S. corporation this year by revenue, bigger than Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which had $288.19 billion in revenue last year. Generally, the bigger the company, the bigger the bottom line.

Even so, many companies smaller than Exxon Mobil "earn" more, depending on what measure is used.

Most financial institutions, such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon Mobil was in its third quarter. For example, Exxon Mobil's gross margin of 9.8 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue pales in comparison to Citigroup Inc.'s 15.7 cents in 2004. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry.

[torrefaction]

So what exactly was the problem with my post? The fact that I requested PROOF was a problem? Or the fact that I rightfully mocked his inability to provide any proof of his ridiculous assertions?

You misinterpreted my words, as all I did was just that: Ask for proof, and mock the lack thereof.

You deserve mockery for doing to my posts (misinterpret) what you state I have done to yours.

Well, given Opsin's rational reaction to facts presented to him, the problem was that you where a dick. Rather than providing counter-evidence (Like the congressional committee that found no actions by the US to aid or instigate a coup in Venezuela), you posted a giant picture of a Kool Aid man.

It would have been just as easy to point him to the facts. He's a new user, who should be encouraged to post, instead of you acting like an ass. It's one thing to mock me or the regulars, if you know how we're going to react. And it's another thing to act the way you did towards someone who can't even start a new thread yet.

It probably should be noted that I don't even agree with the guy, at all, on any of his points. But he reacts well to counter arguments, so I think the way your acting is childish, at best.

[Opsin]

Well aren't you an odd beast? You say "it isn't all black and white", but you seem to have no problem effortlessly shifting from a black and white perspective ("The US is bad--they meddle in other countries bizness!") to a gray scale ("kind of stealing").

You're indicating we don't have proof that the US, and Britain, and any number of other nations are interfering detrimentally to various third world countries economies, by taking control of their natural resources. Russia stealing Ukraine's gas resources for instance.

And indeed, torrefaction, looks like in those last posts from him you proved your point about Johan admirably. And thankyou for a thoroughly reasonable followup post there. It's when I see folks like you and Slack3r around that I am less tempted to swear at everyone and leave! But like you say, the close minded, kneejerk reaction posters are incredibly tiring.

As I say, I am really no fan of Chavez, and would like to see a democratic Venezuela. I don't think the US 'is bad'. I look forward to November and seeing someone sane in the White House, but I doubt much of the big business manipulation (lobbying) will end.

Wraith, I'm not saying Exxon had all this handed to them on a silver platter, but do you think what they have paid Venezuela is worth what they have taken? That's my concern. I'm not saying I'm right.

And MJBuddy... Don't presume to think you know anything about me, just 'cause you disagree.

I'm done now. As I say, all I wanted to do was point to the fact that there are many, many issues at hand here, and the posts that were filling up this thread seemed to have no concern for the number of people affected, the history of the situation (whatever that may be, nothing was being talked about) or anything. At least get into civil discussions about shit and people learn things. Otherwise what's the point in such threads?

[Oxonian]

Did oil companies operate without any ongoing payment to the country of Venezuela for the resources they consumed? I'd be really surprised if that was the case.
The original contracts provided that Venezuela would receive a cut of the profits from the oil drilled and sold by international oil companies. Then Chavez came to power and decided he wasn't getting a big enough slice of the profits. So he announced that he was taking a bigger slice. Most of the oil companies submitted meekly, but Exxon complained and said that, if Chavez wasn't willing to abide by the original deal, he should buy their facilities and let them walk away. Chavez was OK with this, except for the "buying" part. He seized the facilities and told Exxon to fuck off.

Exxon's submitted the dispute to international arbitration. It has asked other countries to put a freeze on Venezuelan assets abroad so that, if Exxon wins the case, it will be able to collect a judgment from those assets. Chavez is extremely pissed off about this.

One of the major reasons Chavez is popular is that he has imposed price controls on a lot of staples like rice and milk. As anyone with the slightest understanding of economics knows, however, if you impose price controls on a good, you get shortages. Chavez was shocked and amazed when, soon after he imposed price controls, there were rice and milk shortages. So now he's considering seizing the rice and milk producers. That has always worked well in the past (see: USSR, Kenya), and I expect it will be completely successful in Venezuela.

And Slack: as I recall, the U.S. didn't endorse the coup attempt against Chavez. It simply didn't condemn the coup. We can argue about how much different that is.

[gzsfrk]

@Opsin:

Here's the big flaw in the arguments about oil prices. Everyone cries foul when prices are high, but no one cares when prices are low and oil companies are posting losses. Oil requires huge investments and R&D to get oil out of deeper parts of the ocean, rebuilding platforms lost in Katrina, etc, etc.


Wow--here I go destroying my Republican credentials (for the record, I am disgusted at the Republican party as a whole), but I have to take a more Johanian position on this. The oil companies achieve their profits in no small part due to market manipulation and oligpoly-enabled leverage (OPEC, et. al.). And while Exxon, BP, Shell, and others might be able to say, "Hey--we're not in OPEC; it's not us!", they reap the benefits of OPEC's actions just the same.

The oil market is a manipulated, controlled system, and all players in that market are guilty of playing the dirty game, regardless of whether or not they're the ones who cause it to be dirty in the first place.

Besides--when was the last time any of the major oil industries posted a significant (or even insignificant) loss? Yeah--a real competitive, capitalistic market, that.

[Johan]

<lack of anything but opinion.>

Where is your proof of a CIA conspiracy to oust Chavez?

Where is your proof that Chavez was legally entitled to take the assets he has summarily taken?

Yeah...I thought not. None. :rolleyes:

So, yeah. The point about me is proven; the point that I'm looking for proof, not your fucking opinion. Your opinion is just that...opinion.

Proof? Got some?

[Citizen Philip]

The first time I heard of Chavez was before he became quite 'popular' namely, the GF and I went to the Toronto Film Festival and ended up seeing a documentary about the original political trouble that started most of this.

Namely he got into some real sticky shit for standing up for the poor and opposing the richer and affluent who represent directly and indirectly the foreign interests who like the cheap labour, even less red tape and the natural resources.

I can't say he's a 100% stand up guy - but I think his goals of making his country not a 3rd world shell government for 1st world companies is perfectly fine in my books. In the long-run his goals -in theory- are the best choice for his country and people.

[gzsfrk]

You're indicating we don't have proof that the US, and Britain, and any number of other nations are interfering detrimentally to various third world countries economies, by taking control of their natural resources. Russia stealing Ukraine's gas resources for instance.


And the starry-eyed stumbling continues. The point I made, to which you are here pitifully trying to provide a counterpoint, is that you are quick to view the actions of the US (or "any number of other" interfering nations) on a black and white scale. To wit, you imply that since they are "interfering" that their actions are bad. However, you ignore the fact that the "interference" of the U.S. in both Afghanistan and Iraq HAS INDEED produced some positive results--assuming, of course, that you believe the movement from totalitarian or religious fundamentalist rule to freedom and democracy to be a postive thing.

That being said, we should by no means eschew the many negatives of US involvement in those areas, particularly in Iraq. But, as you have said referring to Chavez, it's not a simply black and white issue.

But, I guess you're likely to stick to the old "Bush is evil" stand-by of believing that we're over there strictly for "teh oils". (And for the record, I all but detest Bush and the majority of his 2nd term policies.)

[gzsfrk]

Namely he got into some real sticky shit for standing up for the poor and opposing the richer and affluent who represent directly and indirectly the foreign interests who like the cheap labour, even less red tape and the natural resources.

So what you're saying is, if I want to seize governmental power and wealth for my own gain, I can count on your vote of support so long as I say I want to help the poor pplz while doing so?

Awesome--gonna grab me an Ak-47 and head to the capital building in Nashville right now!

[torrefaction]

Besides--when was the last time any of the major oil industries posted a significant (or even insignificant) loss? Yeah--a real competitive, capitalistic market, that.

Uh...November, 2007 for Exxon. 2 quarters in a row.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/52428-exxon-gaps-down-on-earnings-further-losses-expected

BP posted a 1.3 billion dollar loss, this very quarter. It's mixed because production is up and the price of crude is slipping, so they could have a good next corner.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23005502

I'm sure there's more...but it's not as cut and dry as you make it seem, not at all.

[Opsin]

Where is your proof of a CIA conspiracy to oust Chavez?

Where is your proof that Chavez was legally entitled to take the assets he has summarily taken?


You just don't give up do you... The documentary Slack3r referenced discussed the possible CIA involvement in the coup. Not saying it's fact, just saying it's there, and given the situation with the nationalised oil, it would make some sense.

And I didn't pretend to think he has a legal entitlement to do that. I never said that. I just said I didn't think the way Exxon ended up with all the assets was going to be entirely fair. But, you'll probably still jump to some reactionary, insult laden, fact-lite retort. That post where I talked about how discussion is advantageous, you just can't read that kind of 'liberal' English, right?

OK torrefaction, that goes against a news report a few days ago on the BBC about one of the UK oil firms, I'm sure BP, taking record profits this year... But, I'll stand corrected. If there's anyway I can be pissed at the oil firms for paying over £1 a litre for gasoline, I'll take it though!

[xcalibur]

And I didn't pretend to think he has a legal entitlement to do that. I never said that. I just said I didn't think the way Exxon ended up with all the assets was going to be entirely fair.

Let's see. Exxon legally purchased rights to drill. Chaves didn't like the cut he was getting and tried to force Exxon to change the deal. Exxon said no. Chaves said "Fuck you, I will just take it then!" Exxon tries to recoup the lost assets via legal means.

How is Exxon the unfair one in this scenario again?


-X

[Achilles]

Another interesting window into the inner workings of the new Venezuela. He thinks that Bush can order the British court to rule against Exxon. I can only assume that because in Chavez-land, he could call up the judge sitting on a multi-billion dollar case in one of his ally’s nations involving a privately owned company, and order that judge to rule in a certain way.

Welcome to the US; Bush can’t do that. The case will be resolved however it will be resolved, based on the evidence or whatever else. He can hold our government responsible all he likes, and personally I’ll be glad to see him stop shipping oil to us. Last I heard the sort of oil Venezuela has is the long chain carbon type which is mostly only good for heating, not for making gasoline out of, it’s considered low-quality oil and there are probably a great many other sources that we should already be buying from.

[gzsfrk]

Uh...November, 2007 for Exxon. 2 quarters in a row.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/52428-exxon-gaps-down-on-earnings-further-losses-expected


So you're looking at quarter by quarter instead of annual results. I'm sure we could even look at week by week and be able to paint the Big Oil Co's as being in even more pain. (I should hurt so bad.) Due to things like natural disasters, wars, and other major production disruptions, you'll likely always be able to point to a specific point in time and say, "See! Look! Exxon/BP/Shell is losing money! Give them teh tax incentives to pump mah oil!!!!"

At any rate, let me ask it again, more specifically--when was the last time a major oil producer posted an ANNUAL loss?

Also, looking at that link and after doing some searching, I couldn't tell--did Exxon post an operating loss, or were the losses they posted simply due to their their profits and stock price being down (and not true operating losses)? I'm not trying to be snide--I honestly couldn't find the answer.

And with regard to the link to the BP article, the answer is quite obvious. The headline states, "BP's Profit Falls 24%", NOT that they had a loss. I think we have a misunderstanding of what "loss" actually means. It's when you lose money--not just when you make less than you did last reporting period.

[torrefaction]

And with regard to the link to the BP article, the answer is quite obvious. The headline states, "BP's Profit Falls 24%", NOT that they had a loss. I think we have a misunderstanding of what "loss" actually means. It's when you lose money--not just when you make less than you did last reporting period.

I realize I screwed up on the last one. To be fair, it's because the US refining division posted a $1.3 billion dollar loss, and I misread the article.

The rest of the stuff is either going to have to.
A.)Wait, if I remember
B.)Get ignored, if I forgot.

I'm really busy now.

[Oxonian]

At any rate, let me ask it again, more specifically--when was the last time a major oil producer posted an ANNUAL loss?
Pemex, the sixth-largest oil company in the world, posted an annual loss (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/17213.html) in 2005. I'm not sure how it did in 2006 or 2007.

[Citizen Philip]

So what you're saying is, if I want to seize governmental power and wealth for my own gain, I can count on your vote of support so long as I say I want to help the poor pplz while doing so?

Awesome--gonna grab me an Ak-47 and head to the capital building in Nashville right now!

Your post is devoid of humour.

[torrefaction]

I'm going to repost it, since the anti-oil people ignored it, and I think it's probably the most important factor when discussing profits. They make a lot because they SELL a lot. The profit margins in oil aren't even #2 in profit margins. It goes banking, pharmaceuticals, THEN oil. The thing is, they just sell a lot more oil.

Do you want them to stop making money, and tell people that no...they don't want to sell you any more oil, because they'll be vilified for making too much money.

Most financial institutions, such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon Mobil was in its third quarter. For example, Exxon Mobil's gross margin of 9.8 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue pales in comparison to Citigroup Inc.'s 15.7 cents in 2004. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry.

[SuicideKing]

Also, one point that often doesn't get made... They pay a LOT in taxes. Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year.

According to IRS data for 2004 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07winbul.pdf), the most recent year available

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers paid in 2004 (most recent year available), which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% was only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion) in 2004, and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

Granted, those are global taxes, so the frame of reference differs in the comparison, but your average lower 50% bracket person doesn't pay international taxes, so I maintain it's still a worthwhile comparison.
So yeah.... Enough bitching about oil profits already. They probably pay for a lot of stuff you take for granted, not to mention torrefaction is on the money as to why they make what they do.

[MJBuddy]

As I said in my post earlier:

Don't hate on big business. They're not the ones exploiting you - look to your government for that.

[gzsfrk]

I'm going to repost it, since the anti-oil people ignored it, and I think it's probably the most important factor when discussing profits. They make a lot because they SELL a lot. The profit margins in oil aren't even #2 in profit margins. It goes banking, pharmaceuticals, THEN oil. The thing is, they just sell a lot more oil.


You say that as though I don't have major issues against the banking and pharmaceutical industries. (I do.)

That aside, it doesn't matter that oil companies don't have the highest margins on their product. At issue is that they are even in contention for the highest. Oil is (or should be) a commodotized product. Commodities by their nature (eggs, milk, butter, etc.) have very low margins because there is very little by which competitors in the market can do with their product to provide competitive advantage (that is to say, something that makes their product more appealing to consumers than their competitors products). Thus, market pressures push consumer prices closer and closer to the cost of production as competitors, lacking notable competitive advantages, are forced to compete based primarily on price.

Where the system is short circuited is via the collusion that you see occurring between the major oil producing nations (and with the tacit approval, I think it goes without saying, of the major oil-producing corporations) whereby they carefully control production so as to manipulate market prices.

If all the major egg manufacturers in the U.S. got together and agreed to regulate production in an effort to "stabilize" market prices for their product, they would be facing the wrath of the federal government. But if the U.S. were forced to import a sizable percentage of its eggs from outside countries who then banded together to form EPEC (Egg-Producing & Exporting Countries), an organization which could then control and restrict production between its members so as to prop up egg prices, the domestic egg companies--despite not being an active participant in the callusion--would still reap the benefits of the artificially inflated price of what they are producing.

I think that's a fair comparison to what's going on in the oil industry today (you, of course, are both free and likely to disagree). It's also why I think that measures outside of free market mechanisms are going to be required to correct it. I don't know what the perfect or even best solution is, but I do know that I don't believe the system we currently have in place is acceptable, let alone the best.

[torrefaction]

I think that's a fair comparison to what's going on in the oil industry today (you, of course, are both free and likely to disagree). It's also why I think that measures outside of free market mechanisms are going to be required to correct it. I don't know what the perfect or even best solution is, but I do know that I don't believe the system we currently have in place is acceptable, let alone the best.

Around 20 years ago, the federal government decided that telephone service was a commodity, and as an extension, that AT&T was a monopoly. We went through great effort and a HUGE tax payer expense to regulate and break up them up.

Fast forward to today, and we have the almost the same exact company that existed pre-breakup? Why? Market forces created new technologies, which was rapidly driving existing telco's into a piss-poor financial state. The rapid rise of the internet, cell phones, and VoIP all attributed to this. So did the extremely complex regulation of the bell's.

The answer is almost never federal regulation, and almost ALWAYS market forces. As humans, we tend to lack foresight, and a lot of times do more damage to our economy in the long run than would've occurred if we let the market play out.

There is now a huge demand for alternative technologies to beat out oil. I'd rather keep up the pressure and see these come to fruition, and end our dependence on oil, than force the prices down artificially through regulation and end the crisis.

Why? We had an oil crisis once. In the 19 fucking 70's. Prices are just now reaching those same levels again. If we lose the crisis, we lose the demand for alternative energy sources, because the public pressure will die down. I want this to never be an issue again.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/InfAdjGas1918_2005.gif

[Johan]

You just don't give up do you... The documentary Slack3r referenced

I'm sorry...did YOU provide any evidence for any of your opinions regarding CIA direction/involvement in a coup against Chavez?

Yeah...thought now. :D

[torrefaction]

Johan's 3rd favorite tactic:
Repeating the same thing, over and over again.

[Oxonian]

Oil is (or should be) a commodotized product. Commodities by their nature (eggs, milk, butter, etc.) have very low margins because there is very little by which competitors in the market can do with their product to provide competitive advantage (that is to say, something that makes their product more appealing to consumers than their competitors products). Thus, market pressures push consumer prices closer and closer to the cost of production as competitors, lacking notable competitive advantages, are forced to compete based primarily on price.
This is not wrong, but I think it overlooks some subtleties of the oil industry separate from OPEC.

Unlike many of the commodities you mentioned, all oil is not created equal. Light, sweet crude (i.e., crude that has relatively few impurities and a large proportion of the most valuable distillates) isn't just found anywhere. Different countries produce crude oil of different values and for different costs. The oil in Saudi Arabia, for example, is unusually high-quality and unusually easy to extract.

In other markets, if one producer (e.g. Saudi Arabia) has a competitive advantage in cost or quality, other producers will adopt their practices or be driven out of business. That can't easily happen in oil: Mexican oil rigs can't magically make their oil high-quality or easy to pump. Moreover, there's an optimal level of exploitation of any given oil field: you can only put so many derricks so close together on a particular field, and if you exceed that number, total production actually decreases. This is in stark contrast to, say, egg producers: if Arkansas has the optimal environmental conditions for chicken-raising, you can pretty much cram a billion chicken coops cheek-by-jowl across the state. It might even improve the local scenery.

These factors mean that whoever has mineral concessions in Saudi Arabia and other super-low-cost fields will reap surplus profits even if the market is highly competitive. In this way, the oil market is a little like the labor market. I'm more efficient at my job than the average worker in my industry. These advantages are innate, not a matter of technique, so other stupider people in my industry can't easily become as efficient as I am. Nor can I easily expand production and dominate the industry: I am, after all, one man, and I would occasionally like to spend time doing things other than schooling punk-ass fools how it's done. The end result is that the market price of labor is set by the marginal worker and the marginal employer, while I reap fat surpluses in the form of having a lot of spare time.

[Johan]

Johan's 3rd favorite tactic:
Repeating the same thing, over and over again.

There does seem to be some of that going on here, doesn't there? :D

...trying to make reasoned arguments with Johan. Don't.

Johan's second favorite tactic?

Johan's 3rd favorite tactic:

Echoechoechoechoechoechoechoechoechoecho...

[torrefaction]

That wasn't the same thing over and over. I was just clarifying for the new users your argument style.

[Johan]

That wasn't the same thing over and over. I was just clarifying for the new users your argument style.

Thank you! I'd like to clarify it as well.

Random poster: Throws up a post with opinions pointing accusatory fingers in multiple directions, without proof.

Johan: Requests proof, and mocks lack thereof

Random additional poster: Throws up a post declaring Johan's post requesting proof as inflammatory and argumentative.

Johan: Reiterates a request for proof, points out inaccuracy of "additional poster."

Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.