A puzzle for the US?

[Lord DragonsWing]

Wow! The Mexican government has locations of watering areas in the U.S. and where the best place to sneak in is? I'm sure the drug runners will love this!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's see!!!!!!!!! Anyone want to print a map on the illegal points of entry for any other country? What the hell, why not. Let's print maps for every country to help peeps sneak to the West. I've got a few hundred to spare. Mexico will print them for cheap. After all, the terrorist will love to buy them!!!!!!!!!!! We'll make a fortune!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[R. Richard]

Pure:
If you want to know about Mexican oil, do not read lectures, ask a Mexican.

Pemex is one of the worst run oil companies in the world. The workers have to labor in unsafe conditions. There have been several major oil spills and several explosions due to Pemex mismanagement.

For many years it was impossible for a private citizen to get premium fuel during the harvest season because that fuel was reserved for the harvest machinery.

What you are reading is politics. The real situation is much different. Ask a Mexican.

JMHO.

 

[R. Richard]

Wow! The Mexican government has locations of watering areas in the U.S. and where the best place to sneak in is? I'm sure the drug runners will love this!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's see!!!!!!!!! Anyone want to print a map on the illegal points of entry for any other country? What the hell, why not. Let's print maps for every country to help peeps sneak to the West. I've got a few hundred to spare. Mexico will print them for cheap. After all, the terrorist will love to buy them!!!!!!!!!!! We'll make a fortune!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its not quite as bad as you might think. What the maps do is to highlight areas where people from the US are likely to find illegal aliens. The concentration points are not too important to the politiacally run Border Patrol, but private groups can and will arrest illegal aliens trying to use the highlighted services.

Unfortunately, the "coyotes" who import illegal aliens can and will use routes that they know where they do not use the highlighted areas. Normally, a "coyote" will simply abandon his "pollos" if they are discovered or if they run out of water. However, foreign terrorists pay too much to be simply abandoned, if the "coyotes" hope to continue to earn the big bucks. Thus, the "coyotes" will better supply the terrorists and use harder to detect points of entry and routes through the deserts.

There is a simple solution to the problem, one used by the government in the past. However, your government will not use the same, proved solution today, despite the fact that it would give legal, high-paid employment to very poor Amerinds.

 

[Pure]

Reply to R. Richard.

RR said,
Pure:
If you want to know about Mexican oil, do not read lectures, ask a Mexican.

Pemex is one of the worst run oil companies in the world. The workers have to labor in unsafe conditions. There have been several major oil spills and several explosions due to Pemex mismanagement.

For many years it was impossible for a private citizen to get premium fuel during the harvest season because that fuel was reserved for the harvest machinery.

What you are reading is politics. The real situation is much different. Ask a Mexican.

JMHO.
------------

Pure's reply: RR, you have an annoying way of coming up with 'facts' and expecting everyone to believe them. I was simply demonstrating the trouble a 'good leader'--a legitimate one, like Cardenas--gets himself into, when nationalization is carried out.

Your opinion of these leaders is of no particular merit, and if it had merit, is of no relevance.

Their experiences are common in other countries that have nationalized, including Argentina Brazil, and Bolivia. You may hate nationalization, but the point is that the US does not have a right to use or hire the use of armed force in a foreign country, to attack or depose a lawful government.

You say, "ask a Mexican"; I'm pretty sure Jorge Gonzales, chairman of the economics dept of Trinity Universtiy IS Mexican. At any rate he teaches La Economia Mexicana in Spanish, at Trinity. He has published several papers on Mexico, and taught there. He took a BA there. Please tell us about your comparable degrees and experience!

I post his resume, and until you post yours, of equal qualifications, there is no reason for anyone (except amicus) to take your right-wing 'facts' over Dr. Gonzales'. The facts about Mexico's oil nationalization program, and the US and British pressures applied to Mexico are rather well known. For the account, already posted, of Mexico's oil policies in the late 1930s, I looked to--

JORGE G. GONZALEZ

C.V.


Department of Economics
Trinity University
One Trinity Place
San Antonio, TX 78212-7200

Phone: (210) 999-7224
E-mail: jorge.gonzalez@trinity.edu
Web: www.trinity.edu/jgonzal1

EDUCATION

Michigan State University
Ph.D. in Economics, July 1989.
M.A. in Economics, December 1986.

Fields: International Economics, Political Economy, and Economic Development.
Dissertation title: "Essays in the Theory of International Factor Mobility"

Monterrey Institute of Technology (ITESM), Monterrey, Mexico
Bachelor of Arts, May 1984.
Major: Economics.

University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
Exchange student. 1982-1983 academic year.

HONORS

Trinity University: Winner of Trinity University’s most prestigious teaching award, the Dr. and Mrs. Z. T. Scott Faculty Fellowship, May 2003.

Trinity University: Named most outstanding professor of economics (with Richard Butler) by the Mortar Board Honor Society. October 1996.
Trinity University: Elected to Alpha Kappa Psi Honor Fraternity. November 1991.

Trinity University: R.R. Witt Junior Faculty Fellow (Fall 1989 to Summer 1992).

Michigan State University: "Highest Scholarship Award" (awarded to graduating M.A. in economics with highest G.P.A.). May 1987.

Monterrey Institute of Technology (ITESM): Graduated first in graduating economics class. May 1984.
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire: Dean's list (1982-1983).

PUBLICATIONS


“Scholarly Journal Articles about the Asian Tiger Economies: authors, journals and research fields, 1986-2001,” with Joe Davis (Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, November 2003, Vol. 17, Issue 2, p. 51).

“The Dollar and the Peso: Where is the ‘Peso Problem’?” with Roger Spencer and Daniel Walz (Journal of Business and Economic Perspectives, Spring/Summer 2003, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 48-57).

“An Analysis of the Volatility of the Mexican Stock Market,” with Roger Spencer and Daniel Walz (Applied Financial Economics, 2003, Vol. 13, pp. 741-745).

"The Journal Literature of International Economics," with Joe Davis and Debra Patterson (in K. Fatemi and D. Jourdan, eds., Contemporary Developments in International Business, Paris: Editions Eska, 2002, pp. 251-259).

"Do Not Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor! Determinants of Legislator Voting on Immigration Issues," with Nipoli Kamdar (Eastern Economic Journal, Spring 2000, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 127-143).

"The Term Structure of Interest Rates and the Mexican Economy," with Roger Spencer and Daniel Walz (Contemporary Economic Policy, July 2000, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 284-294).

"The Information in the Mexican Term Structure of Interest Rates: Capital Market Implications," with Roger Spencer and Daniel Walz (Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 1999, Vol. 9, pp. 149-161).

"Artículos acerca de la Economía Mexicana Publicados en Revistas Especializadas (1978-1995)" (Scholarly Journals and the Mexican Economy, 1978-1995), with Joe Davis (El Trimestre Económico, April-June 1998, Vol. LXV(2), No. 258, pp. 315-326).

"An Empirical Analysis of the U.S. Senate Vote on NAFTA and GATT," with Nipoli Kamdar (International Advances in Economic Research, May 1998, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 105-114).

"Quis, Quid, Ubi, Quibus Auxiliis, Cur, Quo Modo, Quando? The U.S. House of Representatives Votes on NAFTA and GATT," with Nipoli Kamdar (in K. Fatemi, ed., International Business in the New Millennium, Laredo, TX: Texas A&M International University, May 1997, Vol. II, pp. 435-449).

"Mexico's External Sector and the 1994-1995 Crisis: Old Wine in New Bottles?," with Alejandro Velez (in D. Dimon, I. Gutierrez, and S. Nichols, eds., Competitiveness in International Business and Trade, Laredo, TX: Texas A&M International University, May 1996, Vol. I, pp. 57-68).

"Intra-Industry Trade Between the U.S. and the Major Latin American Countries: Measurement and Implications for Free Trade in the Americas," with Alejandro Velez (The International Trade Journal, Winter 1995, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 519-536).

"Impact of the Maquiladora Program on the Level of Intra-Industry Trade Between Mexico and the United States," with Alejandro Velez (in The Globalization of Business in the 1990s: Implications for Trade and Investment, Proceedings of the International Trade and Finance Association Conference, Summer 1994, Vol. 5, pp. 1509-1524).

"Illegal Immigration in the Presence of Labor Unions" (International Economic Journal, Summer 1994, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 57-70).

"An Empirical Estimation of the Level of Intra-Industry Trade Between Mexico and the United States," with Alejandro Velez (in K. Fatemi ed., North American Free Trade Agreement: Opportunities and Challenges, London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1993, pp. 161-172).

"An Estimation of Mexico's Import Demand for U.S. Products and its Implications for the North American Free Trade Area," with Alejandro Velez (Journal of Business and Economic Perspectives, Fall 1992, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 61-69).

"Economic Theory of Illegal Immigration: A Survey of Literature" (Southwest Business Review, Fall 1992, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 143-151).
"Effects of Direct Foreign Investment in the Presence of Sector-Specific Unemployment" (International Economic Journal, Summer 1988, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 15-27).

[...]

CONFERENCES [excerpts]

Mexico City, Mexico. Presented talk on the Mexican economy.
IV Congreso de Comercio Internacional, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, March 1999, Monterrey, Mexico.

Presented talk on Mexico’s economic crisis.
International Trade and Finance Association, May 1998, Atlantic City, NJ. Presented paper, co-authored Nipoli Kamdar, on the determinants of the U.S. House of Representatives votes on immigration issues.
Southern Economic Association Meetings, November 1997, Atlanta, GA.


International Trade and Finance Association, May 1997, Porto, Portugal. Presented papers on determinants of the U.S. House of Representatives votes on NAFTA and GATT (co-authored Nipoli Kamdar) and on the informational content of the term structure of interest rates in Mexico (co-authored with Roger Spencer and Daniel Walz).

IV Simposium Internacional en Administración, Universidad de Montemorelos, March 1997, Montemorelos, N.L., Mexico. Presented talk on Mexican economy.

III Simposium Internacional en Administración, Universidad de Montemorelos, March 1996, Linares, N.L., Mexico. Presented talk on Mexico’s economic crisis.

Southwest Council of Latin American Studies Meetings, March 1996, Oaxaca, Mexico. Presented paper, with Alejandro Velez, on reaction of
Instituto de Contadores Públicos de Nuevo León, A.C., September 1995, Monterrey, Mexico. Presented talk on Mexico’s economic crisis.

Texas Association of Regional Councils, September 1995, San Antonio, TX. Presented talk on Mexican economic crisis to a group of 300 Texas judges and mayors.

International Trade and Finance Association, May 1995, San José, Costa Rica. Presented paper, with Alejandro Velez, on Intra-Industry trade between the U.S. and the major Latin American nations.
Congreso Internacional de Administración de Empresas del ITESM, March

1995, Monterrey, Mexico. Presented talk on Mexico's economic crisis.
Instituto de Contadores Públicos de Nuevo León, A.C., January 1995, Monterrey, Mexico. Presented talk on Mexico's economic crisis.
Southern Economic Association Meetings, November 1994, Orlando, FL. Presented paper, with Alejandro Velez, on time-series determinants of Intra-Industry Trade between Mexico and the U.S.


PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

TRINITY UNIVERSITY, San Antonio, Texas.
Chairman, Department of Economics (June 1997 to present)
Professor of Economics (August 2001 to present)
Associate Professor of Economics (August 1995 to July 2001)
Assistant Professor of Economics (August 1989 to July 1995)

Classes taught: Principles of Microeconomics, Principles of Macroeconomics, The World Economy, International Trade, Economic Growth and Development, Economic Development of Mexico, La Economía Mexicana (course taught in Spanish).


Faculty Development: Organized (in cooperation with two faculty members) Faculty Summer Seminar: "Encuentro con Mexico" (Summer 1994). This seminar took 19 professors to Mexico for a 10 day study-tour. Organized (in cooperation with one faculty member) faculty group to attend 1994 Mexican elections as International Observers. Developed a faculty exchange program between the Monterrey Institute of Technology (Mexico) and Trinity University.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, East Lansing, Michigan
Instructor of Economics (Fall 1987, Academic year 1988-1989)
Graduate Assistant, Department of Economics, (Fall 1984 - Spring 1988).

CONSULTORES EJECUTIVOS EN DIRECCIÓN, Mexico City, June-August 1988. Coordinated study of Food Marketing in Mexico that was used as the basis for the 1988-1994 Federal Government Plan on Food Marketing.

ASESORÍA Y DESARROLLO DE EMPRESAS MEXICANAS, S.A. (ADEMSA), Monterrey, Mexico, June-August 1987. Assisted in study of Food Marketing in Mexico sponsored by FIDEC (Trust Fund of the Bank of Mexico) and the World Bank.

ADEMSA, Durango, Mexico, June 1986. Coordinated public opinion polls in the State of Durango on behalf of one of the candidates to Governor of that State.

GRUPO GENTOR, S.A., Monterrey, Mexico, January-August 1984. The job in the Strategic Planning Department included conducting several market studies in various cities with the purpose of finding optimum locations for new ASTRA outlets (hypermarkets). Also a study on the U.S.-Mexican border retail trade was conducted.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

American Economic Association
International Trade and Finance Association
Southern Economic Association
Alpha Kappa Psi
Asociación de Empresarios Mexicanos

REFERENCES

 

[elsol]

Wait... wait... I think the snowball is fighting it's way to a stalemate.

Amicus, the most reasonable voice in a thread.

NOOOOOOOOO!

You have a thing for latin chicks, don't you, ami?!?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Oh, agreed. Wasn't saying that there was a straightforward answer - only that that was where the answer would have to be. And, of course, largely because of this:



I think that's at the root of a lot of the difficulties in establishing stable, benevolent governments in Africa as well. By the time the colonial powers moved out, everyone in living memory had been ruled under the same system: outright theft and brutality backed up by the state for the benefit of those in charge. It's very difficult to change that. The straightforward answer to moving on from colonial power - "Who should get to control and loot the country now?" - is so obvious, and has so many eager takers, that it takes a truly extraordinary group of people working together to change that question to "How can we return the government of this country to something that benefits its citizens?"

It does happen. I think Ghandi did his best to do that, and certainly set a powerful personal example. I've recently been learning about the early government of Botswana and found their leader's thoughts and actions very inspiring. But it's difficult to find such people. My feelings on the actions of the American "founding fathers" are mixed, as I think they must be, but I will give Washington this: many people wanted to make him king, probably enough that he could have been - especially with an army behind him. He turned it down.

The world need people who can make that decision. Sometimes of all the good a leader can accomplish, the highest good is stepping aside and showing that power can and must change hands peacefully. I wish that our forefathers had done many things differently, but I think it's easy to forget how vital and how revolutionary that central idea was, and how remarkable it was that they were able to enshrine it: that the leadership of the country should and will regularly change hands without insurrection, civil war, and the collapse of all law and order.

Africa is the worst possible place, because the borders were drawn by people who had never been there. Also because the use of native auxiallarys was widespread, usually giving a smaller tribe power. When the Eurpoeans left, the bigger tribed wanted payback. Almost all of them began their independence with a bloodbath.

Mexico's colonial past is a distant memory, but I think it still is at the root of the majority of their problems. It really is a hard row to hoe to find yourself coming out of a colonial begining.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

an even bigger problem, in my opinion, is if you are economically controlled by the multinationals, who, at one point claimed ownership of everything deep under Mexican soil (specifically oil).

further if a major government supporting the multinationals is your next door neighbor....

my impression is that Venezuela, another major oil supplier, is a coming 'hot spot,' in that there is, afaik, a democratically elected, popular leftwing government.

(by the way, I by no means claim that every 'nationalization' carried out by a government is done well, handled well, or is problem-free. in some cases, perhaps a 'mixed' system [part government ownership] might be wiser to put in place.

i merely say, that if the government is popularly and lawfully elected, then nationalization measures are lawful, in that country's terms, and are not a causus belli in international terms.

some degree of compensation may be appropriate, but it could be argued that this sum, X dollars, should by lowered by the total amount of profits taken out from the country over the last, say, 20 years.

further, i see no reason it should include a sum representing all possible future gains over the next 50 years, as some businesses are wont to claim.

in the case of Mexico, the amount the US approved was on the order of 45 million, as against the claimed 450 million.

in any case, barring crimes against US citizens or threats to US security, I see no justification for invasion or paying the country's army to stage a coup.)

What say you?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

an even bigger problem, in my opinion, is if you are economically controlled by the multinationals, who, at one point claimed ownership of everything deep under Mexican soil (specifically oil).

further if a major government supporting the multinationals is your next door neighbor....

my impression is that Venezuela, another major oil supplier, is a coming 'hot spot,' in that there is, afaik, a democratically elected, popular leftwing government.

(by the way, I by no means claim that every 'nationalization' carried out by a government is done well, handled well, or is problem-free. in some cases, perhaps a 'mixed' system [part government ownership] might be wiser to put in place.

i merely say, that if the government is popularly and lawfully elected, then nationalization measures are lawful, in that country's terms, and are not a causus belli in international terms.

some degree of compensation may be appropriate, but it could be argued that this sum, X dollars, should by lowered by the total amount of profits taken out from the country over the last, say, 20 years.

further, i see no reason it should include a sum representing all possible future gains over the next 50 years, as some businesses are wont to claim.

in the case of Mexico, the amount the US approved was on the order of 45 million, as against the claimed 450 million.

in any case, barring crimes against US citizens or threats to US security, I see no justification for invasion or paying the country's army to stage a coup.)

What say you?

Take a step back J. I'll work with oil, since it's a commonly nationalized resource. First of all, let me dispell a myth, oil fields don't create a lot of permanent jobs. there is always a boom during the exploration phase, when there are rigs to be built and piepe lines to be built ansd storage facilities to be built. But once they are built, the actual work force is meagre. The majoiruty of oil jobbs are for skilled techs, administrators and such.

Let me step back to one of the problems of colonialism, there is usually very little emphasis on education. So a country nationalies it's oil and kicks out the imperialists and... discovers they don't have anyone qualified to run the fields, repair and maintain the dereks and piplelines and distribution platforms, etc. The governemnt is usually faced with an either or. either we train our own folks, in which case we suffer through several years of hideous mismanagement and decline Or we give a concession to exxon or Gulf or BP and have them get people in who know what to do so we keep producing smoothly.

Unless the resources is infinte and more or less runs itself al la the suez canal, nationalization usually brings little of the promise. It does create jobs, but you generally don't have enough technically educated native people to fill them. Even if you do, the number of jobs is not what you think. If you wait to train your own, the industry suffers for several years. If you bring in outsiders, you are right back where you started, with some big outfit calling the shots. You also have several big influence people pissed off.

Mexico's national oil company is atrocious. their infrastructure is on the verge of collapse, because they don't have enough people to maintain what they have, much less recondition the older facilities.

This isn't to say nationalization isn't the answer in some situations, but it is far from a panacea.

 

[Pure]

you ignore a main issue:

could a country be considered 'sovereign' if its key resources, e.g oil, are foreign owned and controlled? (would you be ok, for instance if France owned most US oil fields?)

apart from the jobs issue is the *small question* where are the profits going?

if a poor country is lucky enough to have oil, there is a potential to use oil related income to help build roads, schools, etc.? no?

 

[R. Richard]

Pure's reply: RR, you have an annoying way of coming up with 'facts' and expecting everyone to believe them. I was simply demonstrating the trouble a 'good leader'--a legitimate one, like Cardenas--gets himself into, when nationalization is carried out.

Your opinion of these leaders is of no particular merit, and if it had merit, is of no relevance.

Their experiences are common in other countries that have nationalized, including Argentina Brazil, and Bolivia. You may hate nationalization, but the point is that the US does not have a right to use or hire the use of armed force in a foreign country, to attack or depose a lawful government.

You say, "ask a Mexican"; I'm pretty sure Jorge Gonzales, chairman of the economics dept of Trinity Universtiy IS Mexican. At any rate he teaches La Economia Mexicana in Spanish, at Trinity. He has published several papers on Mexico, and taught there. He took a BA there. Please tell us about your comparable degrees and experience!

I post his resume, and until you post yours, of equal qualifications, there is no reason for anyone (except amicus) to take your right-wing 'facts' over Dr. Gonzales'. The facts about Mexico's oil nationalization program, and the US and British pressures applied to Mexico are rather well known. For the account, already posted, of Mexico's oil policies in the late 1930s, I looked to--

JORGE G. GONZALEZ
Ph.D. in Economics, July 1989.
M.A. in Economics, December 1986.

Pure, let me try to be as gentle as I can with you. You like to cite authority.

Walter Duranty was the New York Times journalist in Moscow from the 1920s to early 1930s.

He reported that the famine that Stalin created in the Ukaraine was not true. His dynamic reporting won him a Pulitzer Prize! His reporting was all lies.

Jorge G. Gonzales has it piled higher and deeper [Ph.D], I do not. I have been in Mexico, in the oil fields, I strongly suspect that Senor Gonzales has not.

I will not repeat Colly's excellent analysis of nationalization of foreign companies, particularly oil companies. Even in Sr. Gonzales report he notes that the foreign companies were later allowed back in. The reason behind this is that, as Colly noted, the large oil companies are basically the only ones who can run a modern, productive oil field.

It would take much more time than I have to tell you why. Let me cite a specific example. During WWII, the allies bombed the oil fields in Ploesti, Romania. The oil fields caught fire. The fire burned for years, despite the best efforts of the Romanians to put the fire out. After a time, the Romanians called up a "good ol' boy in Houston." The good ol' boy went over and put the fire out. The good ol' boy didn't have it piled higher and deeper either.

Google that!

 

[Pure]

Let me be as diplomatic as I can.

I posted and historical account of Cardena's nationalization; it's part of a larger lecture of Gonzales, apparently a Mexican, and definitely an economist. He is incidentally, imo, not particularly left wing.

You have not disputed any of the facts posted.

You show no evidence of having read the whole lecture, which did get into the more recent period.

You say, Duranty mis-reported Stalin in the 30s, no doubt because D was a starry eyed liberal.

Somehow this is to suggest that Gonzales has a similar problem, and that his report is an unreliable as Duranty's. That is illogical to say the least.

It's an intriguing, if ill informed proposition that only large multinational oil companies can effectively run an oil field. You've given no evidence.
You require us to believe that the Saudia Arabian Oil Co., Kuwait Petrolem, and China National Petroleum, among the top 10 world producers, are poorly run. So says R. Richard. I realize that, from amicus perspective, non-private property is a sin against non-God; similarly your position here is simply an ideological tic.

BUT assuming FTSOA that it's true, 1) their expertise can be hired, as in the example you gave; 2) were they to be given a stake, it could be in the form of a lease, say for 50 yrs; perpetual ownership is hardly required; and 3) the most crucial issue is profit sharing or royalties; and you apparently trust the corp. to be fair in that area, and I do not.

All this is somewhat beside the main point, though I've indulged your tangent. The point is that if a country nationalizes oil, or does other reforms that hurt US companies, the US does not gain a right to invade, or fund an insurrection or coup. You apparently believe this to be the US God given right, exercized, for instance, in Chile, Nicaragua, and other locations, and in this you are in bed with the Rumsfelds and a number of other imperial, rightwing US thinkers (using the term loosely)--and a few, imperial, US liberals.

The general 'drift' of your last two postings is that only the 'right' and only R Richards in particular can be trusted to tell the truth; that we should fear left wingers and distrust their accounts. Unfortunately you cite no evidence that Gonzales is a leftwinger, so again your logic fails.

I hear 'Believe me' all the time from your icon, GWB; hearing it from you has, equally, a null effect on me.

Regards,

 

[Colleen Thomas]

you ignore a main issue:

could a country be considered 'sovereign' if its key resources, e.g oil, are foreign owned and controlled? (would you be ok, for instance if France owned most US oil fields?)

apart from the jobs issue is the *small question* where are the profits going?

if a poor country is lucky enough to have oil, there is a potential to use oil related income to help build roads, schools, etc.? no?

You are ignoring simple reality J. The biggest oil reserves on the planet don't do the country siting on them one bit of good if the oil stays in the ground. The same goes for anyting from strategic metals to timber. A resource has negligible value, if you can't get it into a form where you can sell it to a prosepctive buyer or use it yourself.

like it or no, the know how and initial capital expenses for the equiptment are generally beyond the country doing the nationalizing. If not, it's a great deal for them. Otherwise, the rulers have to enter into an agreement with someone who has the know how and with somone willing to subsidize the inital capital outlay. It shouldn't be surprising that the companies with the know how and the govrnemnet or private interests that have the capital, aren't going to be too keen to help you after you have basically, legally stolen the rights from someone else. They are going to require guarntees of their capital or technical expertise and those guarentees are going to be expensive.

BP or it's subsidiaries own and extract oil in the US, especailly that found in the gulf, but within US costal waters. If a French concern wanted to, it could purchase the rights to texas oilfields as far as I know. Our oil isn't nationalized, nor our timber or strategic metals, with the possible exception of urainum, which we have very little of anyway. Granted it isn't all owned by foerign concerns, but some is. So what?

Owning the resources dosen't do you any good if you can't develop them. Any country that has great mineral wealth, but dosen't have the know how to extract it, is far better off partnering with someone who does have the know how.

Iraq has great reserves of oil, but they are a poor nation. And it isn't because of sanctions or even fat cat politicans. Their oil delvery system got mangled in their war with Iran, just as they mangled Iran's facilities. here aren't enough technically trained Iraqis to get it going again and until it's going again, it's not producing anything for the nation. The governemnt that eventually comes into being there, would be far better off giving concessions to Exxon/mobil, BP or texaco, than they would if they just sat on their oil and watched what intrastructure they have detereorate from lack of maintenance.

The only thing nationalizing really does, unless you have th trained personelle, is allow a government to gt a better deal than they had before they nationalized. It's a whole different critter if they have the trained man power, but very few of them do.

 

[amicus]

Being as undiplomatic as I can possibly be, 'Nationalization' is theft.

Industrialized nations do not need to import expertise to develope resources.

Third world, undeveloped, 'backwards' nations do, such as Iran and Iraq and Syria and Liberia and Nigeria and Venezuela.

Way back when oil exploraton was in its infancy, most of these aforementioned nations were basically agricultural in nature, with no need for vast amounts of energy or petroleum products.

But they did have a need for negotiable currency, cash, such as that offered by the Dutch, the Germans, the French, the British and yes, even those pesky Americans.

Thus national and multi national oil companies pumped billions of dollars into drilling, pumping storing and transporting petroleum out of the host country.

They did not under international treaty auspices, international trade agreements and international law.

Although those agreements most likely varied greatly, the host country, the location of the oil resource, recieved a percentage of the oil production as a lease agreement payment.

It is called business. There was a demand for oil and a supply of oil and as in most cases, the need of the commodity is not often next door, but sometimes a great distance away, even on the other side of the world.

Most cannot envisage the tremendous amounts of money involved in such industry on a vast scale. Oil tankers are commissioned and built around the world on long term financial agreements involving international finance and international agreements.

Theoretically it works fine a third world, undeveloped nations gets needed cash, by doing nothing but negotiating a lease agreement, they get employment for local citizens and always improved infrastructures such as roads, local business, schools and huge amounts of royalty payments into the national coffer.

Of course, as time has shown, those Irans and Venezuela's and Mexico's get greedy. They want more...they want a larger percentage of production.

And of course the usual suspects from the left jump in, "it's their oil anyway, all the profits should be theirs!"

Balderdash.

So when the sleaze bag ragheads and others have squeezed and milked all they can from the oil companies and thus from consumers all over the world, they commit a criminal action and use force to seize the assets, equipment and resources of the the oil producing companies and corporations. They call that 'Nationalization". It is just pure out and out theft.

International law should step in and enforce those trade agreements, ideally, that is, of course, international law is mostly unenforceable, before and after the creation of the United Nations, and the World Bank.

Thus the consumers of the world pay more and more to corrupt dictators who build marble palaces and let the infrastructure built by the oil companies deteriorate and fade away. All but the ruling class live in poverty and misery and life goes on.

Of course, the 'usual suspects' are much too blind to realize any of that.

but others are not....


amicus...

 

[indianPilot]

Africa is the worst possible place, because the borders were drawn by people who had never been there. Also because the use of native auxiallarys was widespread, usually giving a smaller tribe power. When the Eurpoeans left, the bigger tribed wanted payback. Almost all of them began their independence with a bloodbath..

I think you will find the answer a little more subtle than that - The people drawing the boundaries knew exactly what they were doing.

It is the old "Divide and let them conquer themselves". A very old British ploy still having effects today.

By dividing traditiional tribal areas - thus automatically creating a majority and a minority, you have an excellent chance of creating racial tension

 

[amicus]

You are ignoring simple reality J. The biggest oil reserves on the planet don't do the country siting on them one bit of good if the oil stays in the ground. The same goes for anyting from strategic metals to timber. A resource has negligible value, if you can't get it into a form where you can sell it to a prosepctive buyer or use it yourself.

like it or no, the know how and initial capital expenses for the equiptment are generally beyond the country doing the nationalizing. If not, it's a great deal for them. Otherwise, the rulers have to enter into an agreement with someone who has the know how and with somone willing to subsidize the inital capital outlay. It shouldn't be surprising that the companies with the know how and the govrnemnet or private interests that have the capital, aren't going to be too keen to help you after you have basically, legally stolen the rights from someone else. They are going to require guarntees of their capital or technical expertise and those guarentees are going to be expensive.

BP or it's subsidiaries own and extract oil in the US, especailly that found in the gulf, but within US costal waters. If a French concern wanted to, it could purchase the rights to texas oilfields as far as I know. Our oil isn't nationalized, nor our timber or strategic metals, with the possible exception of urainum, which we have very little of anyway. Granted it isn't all owned by foerign concerns, but some is. So what?

Owning the resources dosen't do you any good if you can't develop them. Any country that has great mineral wealth, but dosen't have the know how to extract it, is far better off partnering with someone who does have the know how.

Iraq has great reserves of oil, but they are a poor nation. And it isn't because of sanctions or even fat cat politicans. Their oil delvery system got mangled in their war with Iran, just as they mangled Iran's facilities. here aren't enough technically trained Iraqis to get it going again and until it's going again, it's not producing anything for the nation. The governemnt that eventually comes into being there, would be far better off giving concessions to Exxon/mobil, BP or texaco, than they would if they just sat on their oil and watched what intrastructure they have detereorate from lack of maintenance.

The only thing nationalizing really does, unless you have th trained personelle, is allow a government to gt a better deal than they had before they nationalized. It's a whole different critter if they have the trained man power, but very few of them do.

Hey girl, we must have grown up in the same world!

We posted almost simultaneously from two different aspects, you are just much nicer than I am...but you will learn...you can't be nice to those people...they just don't understand niceties...

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think you will find the answer a little more subtle than that - The people drawing the boundaries knew exactly what they were doing.

It is the old "Divide and let them conquer themselves". A very old British ploy still having effects today.

By dividing traditiional tribal areas - thus automatically creating a majority and a minority, you have an excellent chance of creating racial tension

I don't know what history you have read, but from what I have read, that isn't suportable at all.

If you look at a map of Africa, pre colonial agreement, you will find the coastlines well mapped, with orders that simply fade into nothing the farther you go inland. Basically a wurpoean power simply took the coastline they claimed and extended it inland as far as they could. A lot of the inland colonie's boundaries are nothing more than what was left over in the interior that a nation couldn't police or exploit.

The agreements were framed in Berlin (iirc) and the diplomats there had, by and large never traveled to Africa and certainly none had made it to the interior.

Pitting tibe against tribe occured, but it was done within the bounaries by the individual colonial powers on an ad hoc basis. There was no overrriding mastr policy for it contrived by the great owers before hand. It was simply the most effacous way to do it, so everyone did.

If two tribes shared a homeland, for eample the Hutu and tutsi, then they might end up within one country. If they were unlucky, like the Zulu, they might end up in several, with ill defined boundaries. Eritea is a good example, there are no ethnic eriteans. It's a mish mosh of tribes. The domiant ethiopen tribe, however, found most of their population inside one country. Luck of the draw.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

I don't doubt the capacity of governments to fuck up.

And I think 'nationalization' (or having a national oil company) has to be looked at in a matter of degree: i.e., is the whole industry, to be nationalized, or most of it, or some part. In Canada, the approach was to 'nationalize' (note to amicus--this entails *buying*) a segment (under 10%, iirc) , so as to have some leverage on the market.

But given all your talk about capital and expertise, it must be somewhat of a puzzle to you-- and a perplexing mystery to amicus, were he to delve into the world of fact-- how the Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Chinese national oil companies are among the top producters in the world. ** Likewise, there are well functioning 'national' (but not monopolistic or exclusive) enterprizes in Canada and Norway.

And no, I do not think France would be permitted to buy the Texas oilfields, but I can't cite the specific law.

----
---
**Gibson, a US, oil related consulting company has an interesting website:

for the above data see

http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html

and see the homepage.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't doubt the capacity of governments to fuck up.

And I think 'nationalization' (or having a national oil company) has to be looked at in a matter of degree: i.e., is the whole industry, to be nationalized, or most of it, or some part. In Canada, the approach was to 'nationalize' (note to amicus--this entails *buying*) a segment (under 10%, iirc) , so as to have some leverage on the market.

But given all your talk about capital and expertise, it must be somewhat of a puzzle to you-- and a perplexing mystery to amicus, were he to delve into the world of fact-- how the Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Chinese national oil companies are among the top producters in the world. ** Likewise, there are well functioning 'national' (but not monopolistic or exclusive) enterprizes in Canada and Norway.

And no, I do not think France would be permitted to buy the Texas oilfields, but I can't cite the specific law.

----
---
**Gibson, a US, oil related consulting company has an interesting website:

for the above data see

http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html

and see the homepage.

The Saudis and Kuwaitis simply contracted the work out. Your average Saudi in th eoil bussiness at ground level is a foerigner. Ditto Kuwait. they hire it done. And if you have ver spoken to anyone who worked in eithr country, they will tell you they made wages that make us wages, even union scale look like peanuts. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have a unique situation, huge oil reserves, relatively little population. Even after the big bite into profits that come from paying through the nose for expertise, they can still provide for everyone and a few fat cats make out like modern day Salah-adins. Most places do not have the luxury of huge reserves and limited population.

China, took the Maoist view. They trained their own. China had the size and the patience to wait out the lean years. They also had the ability to co-opt a large number of Chinese who had gone abroad.

Neither surprises me. I never said it couldn't work. I merely said it's no panecea and there are dificulties associated that make it impractical for a lot of places.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hey girl, we must have grown up in the same world!

We posted almost simultaneously from two different aspects, you are just much nicer than I am...but you will learn...you can't be nice to those people...they just don't understand niceties...

amicus...

the bitxh of being a moderate is that nobody likes you

 

[Pure]

oh, i like you a lot

 

[BlackShanglan]

I admire her niceties rather passionately.