Mike, somebody beat you to it.

So much for Bush's dream of raping, pillaging and privatizing all the natural resources belonging to third world countries. I can see the tears in his eyes now.

That commie bastard! How dare he get in the way of Corporate Profits!

Thank God for GWB and his leave no corporation behind style of government.

I mean who else would cut taxes on one of the most insanely profitable industries in the world?

Who else would make imported food inspections by the FDA voluntary at the request of the Company?

Who else would let drug companies write the Medicare drug bill?

Thank God for GWB or we would have government of the people for the people by the people.

YEAH!

Oh No!

This is bad for the democrats come 08!

Sincerely

Rob_The_Wing_Ding

Nationalizing assets is the old way of doing business. Venezuela is stuck in a 1950's time warp or something.

I don't understand why lefties think that some industries, especially what they call "strategic resources" should be nationalized. Why not let the free market work? If you have a problem with foreign companies, why not promote local private companies?

"Why not let the free market work?"

It has been working unfettered for some time. Look around you at all the good it has done in the US of A.

What kind of idiot thinks that a system based on greed will somehow produce wonderful results for the common good?

These repugnant ideologies are going down just like the USSR did before them.

Why not let the free market work?
Posted by member2586 at 2007-05-01 04:29 PM

YEAH!

Define "Free Market"

Then tell us how massive subsidies and tax breaks work into that equation!

See, it aint really "free" when prices are manipulated via US taxpayer dollars to the tune of every ten dollars spent of YOUR money, one dollar profit is made by these so called "free" enterprises!

And most importantly, if a country wants to share its natural recourses with its indigenous people, (the owners) what skin is it off your nose?

62 on the back page and this one makes the front? There oughta be a law.

Redneckville, who said that I favored tax breaks and subsidies for big oil? I am a proponent of REAL free markets, not faux free markets like the GOP gives us.

Turnleft, a system of greed as you call it gives people incentives to invest in projects so that assets work and society benefits from raw materials being converted into finished products as efficiently as possible. Capitalism is only going down in your wildest dreams dude.

What kind of idiot thinks that a system based on greed will somehow produce wonderful results for the common good?

These repugnant ideologies are going down just like the USSR did before them.


By 'repugnant ideologies' are you referring to Capitalism?

Wow,

How moronic is it that the creater of this thread isn't bright enough to look and see another thread is currently being used on this very subject.

Ego or ignorance.

Of course, you know, this means war.

Posted by BullMoose at 2007-05-01 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Yes, Bull.

The government of the United Petrol States cannot let this act of economic terrorism against America stand.

Posted by Corky at 2007-05-01 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

What a great idea! How come nobody has ever thought of this kind of thing before?

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-01 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I wonder what effect this will have on oil prices? Doubt it will be anything good. Guess my ExxonMobil stock will drop a little.

Posted by MSgt at 2007-05-01 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I'm not the biggest fan Ayn Rand has, but wouldn't it have been something if just before the stroke of midnight, these oil companies just dynamited all their equipment and walked away? It would have been funny to watch the primitive Chavez try to make a horse race out of the Orinoco fields, without all the technology and capital he managed to loot from Western stockholders.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-01 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

"without all the technology and capital he managed to loot from Western stockholder"

Don't be stupid. The oil companies have recouped their investment many times over.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Oh. Well, I guess it's OK then.

There's a train station near my house, built over a century ago. Maybe I'll just go and claim it for myself. Great Southern got its money back dozens of times since they built the thing--I'll just use the O'Reilly defense at my trial, see how that goes over.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-01 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Maybe I'll take a hospital too. And there's a factory, an old paper mill, a timber company . . . Why should the fact that it belongs to somebody else stop me?!?! Power to the people!!!!

Come to that, I wonder if there is any Venezuelan company that has set up shop in the United States. Hmmmm. I'll have to Google to see if there are any Unocal stations around.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-01 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Just thought of something else--how about any Venezuelan-flagged merchant ships in US ports? Why not take them, and claim them for the United States? Why should foreign companies and countries be allowed to make a profit in the US?

Power to the people!!! Nationalize Unocal!! How about any deposits in US banks that belong to Venezuelan nationals?

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-01 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


CITGO is Venezuelan. Go seize one of their stations RIR. I'm sure we'd all be interested in whose jail you'd be sitting in.

Posted by BullMoose at 2007-05-01 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


RIR,

That's what happens when you do business with tinpot dictators and communist countries.
Next I'm sure you'll tell me that you'll be shocked, just shocked if China siezes American corporation assets some day.
"No one could have forseen...", right?

Big oil could have invested their money in America, in the American economy and the American worker, on numerous energy projects.

Instead they invested with the communist Chavez, thinking they'd take him for a ride. And they got burned.
Poor babies. Invest in America.

Posted by Norm_ at 2007-05-01 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"Great Southern got its money back dozens of times since they built the thing--I'll just use the O'Reilly defense at my trial, see how that goes over."

Pretty dumb rebuttal, even for you. The oil companies have been taking profits out of Venezuela for decades, and paying absurdly low royalty rates, like 1% for heavy crude. Obviously it's horrifying to you that Venezuela is taking control of THEIR oil and using for themselves, rather than enriching multinational oil companies. Tough.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"That's what happens when you do business with tinpot dictators and communist countries."

They did business with a number of Venezuelan dictators over the last century, who gave them sweetheart deals that saw all the profits go to the oil companies and the Venezuelan oligarchy. Now to their absolute terror, some of the profits are actually going to the Venezuelan people. The horror!

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


RIR, never seen you wimper and whine so much, what gives?

Taking of U.S. capital? You have to be joking. The exploitation being down was by those U.S. companies and Chavez just got tired of it.

It is called being a good citizen to the society and community. Gas companies take the most from society and give the least back.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-05-01 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Define "Free Market"

Definition: Bush corporatists' capitalism run amok and where all federal rules, regulations, and inspections for quality and consumer health and safety are followed on a "voluntary only" basis and employees of these corporations are nothing more than

Thank you, Norm, I now have something to read this afternoon while I pretend to work.

Bill, I'd ask you to expand on your "single payer universal coverage" idea, but this is the wrong thread for it. Any chance of seeing something on it in the Nooner (keep in mind that if you do, it will promptly be ripped to shreds by various people on the board)?

Posted by LetUsReason at 2007-05-01 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"You both seem to be applauding Chavez for appropriating corporate assets."

Jeff, the oil companies are still going to make profits in Venezuelan. This is more about who gets what share of the profits.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



IF we were to have the same mileage standards for gasoline as Europe, around 45 mpg, we would not need any OPEC oil at all.

www.youtube.com

And we would have saved hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of American troops and Iraqi citizens.




Posted by Corky at 2007-05-01 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


That assumes any profits remain, Bill; if Big Oil (and make no mistake, I'm no fan of them, as I do believe but cannot prove that they're deliberately manipulating things to grab every last penny they can) decides to say "screw it" and leave, Chaves and the state-run oil company could and likely will have a really hard time (since, if I read the article correctly, they'll still need the experience of Big Oil to maintain prodiction levels).

Posted by LetUsReason at 2007-05-01 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"it will promptly be ripped to shreds by various people on the board)"

They can try.

Canadians pay $2,163 per capita versus $4,887 U.S. in 2001, according to the Los Angeles Times. According to Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle, Canadians do better by every health care measure. According to a World Health Organization report published in 2003, life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years, versus 77.3 in the U.S[10]71.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Bill,

Jeff is worried about the poor mistreated oil companies.

After all, he might own one one day, and want to have the right to buy American policy and military might in those places where are Dictators get outta control.

It is the American dream, ya know.




Posted by Corky at 2007-05-01 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


LetusReason,

www.pnhp.org

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



"our" dictators

Posted by Corky at 2007-05-01 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


.12 a gallon for gasoline? Viva Hugo!

money.cnn.com


Posted by BullMoose at 2007-05-01 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead."

bcn.boulder.co.us

Posted by DATA at 2007-05-01 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"That assumes any profits remain, Bill;"

There will be. It's in both the oil companies and Venezuela's interests to reach an accomodation.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Where do you draw the line?


Serious question here, this sounds like you are trying to draw out an answer to misquote or misuse in everyway possible.

How far do I draw the line, about as far as you draw the line that corporate freedom is hurting society as a whole.


Posted by moneywar at 2007-05-01 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

OK, that's it! Let's invade Venezuela! It'll be a cakewalk, they'll greet us as liberators, tossing tamales and chichirones at our troops as they liberate every nook and cranny of that godforsaken place. And here's the best part: the Venezuelans' oil will pay for the whole thing!

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2007-05-01 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%.
The 5% that represents the indigent care for those who pay no income tax and send most of their earnings 'south of the border'.

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-05-01 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


And here's the best part: the Venezuelans' oil will pay for the whole thing!
The Alabama nation guard could take care of this over the weekend.

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-05-01 01:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


-The Alabama nation guard

If they weren't on a third tour in Iraq.


Posted by Corky at 2007-05-01 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Serious question here, this sounds like you are trying to draw out an answer to misquote or misuse in everyway possible.

How far do I draw the line, about as far as you draw the line that corporate freedom is hurting society as a whole.


Posted by moneywar at 2007-05-01 01:10 PM

Jeff isn't Hans, but your paranoia over how your response would be viewed is telling.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-05-01 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Corky-
Damn....I'm too late!

Posted by Boyd at 2007-05-01 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


$War,


this sounds like you are trying to draw out an answer to misquote or misuse in everyway possible.


I assure you, that is not my intent. My curiosity was genuine. Every time a thread of this nature comes up you rip corporations as the problem and anoint government as the solution. I ask where you draw the line because I am trying to better understand your overall position. This improved understanding will help me better understand where you are coming from on more specific examples.


Again, I am not looking for a 'gotcha' moment. I have no interest in archiving your answer only to use it later as an attempt to hijack a thread by making YOU the subject.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-01 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

BillyO,

Your wrong about royalties, Venezuela gets 16.6%. Not to mention upstream royalties.
www.voltairenet.org
venezuelanalysis.com
www.progress.org


"Its a mixed Blessing" - Hillary Clinton about WalMart.

Its good for the peoples of Venezuela short term. Long term it will be come a bureaucratic mess. And they wont get the $$ they should be getting.

Is Venezeula in the business of making its people happy? Or the oil business ?
Just renegotiate royalties, and watch your bank account rise. With a small bureaucracy to watch the oil companies.

Finally as a proponent of evolutionary thinking, its best to have many oil producers, and collecting royalities off them, than say a single producer, managed by bureaucratic mess of PSVDA. Given that they may have reached peak oil, it would be bad to have the bureaucracy sitting around while your production drops. www.rigzone.com

Plus they don't pay thier bills...
www.marketwatch.com


Posted by AndreaMackris at 2007-05-01 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


I assure you, that is not my intent. My curiosity was genuine. Every time a thread of this nature comes up you rip corporations as the problem and anoint government as the solution. I ask where you draw the line because I am trying to better understand your overall position. This improved understanding will help me better understand where you are coming from on more specific examples.

Corporations are the problem, government isn't the real solution per say, it is the current venue to be the solution.

If corporations posited their community and social societal values towards a better nation and country and people there would not be a need for governmental solutions.

Everytime a thread of this nature comes along Corporate shills come out with a dismissal of all the ills corporations create for betterment of profits. Hence, government is needed to protect the people.

The simple fact that you are unable to see the downings of society for the profit gainings of a Corporate pandering motif and assuming that corporations advantage is great and good regardless of the stature of what they purvey throughout explains why it appears we think government intervention is the answer.

How ironic is it that the survival of the corporation is predicated upon the survival interest of the people, when the people have been deluged to a point where it is government intervention of riots, and if you are not understanding that the people are supporting Chavez you will never see it begin in this country until the actual event happens.

And the sad thing about this is you will be just like the rest in joining in the prevailing sediment of the people while the whole time supporting the downing of society for short few (individual) gain.

The society should rule over economic value and the fact you can't see this is striking.

I have ask and said this many times without a single answer from those of Corporate support.

"Does society work to benefit the economy or does the economy work to benefit society."

Simple concept, but what side are your thoughts really on?

Posted by moneywar at 2007-05-01 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Jeff J.,

If these oil companies spent a little of the money in making the betterment of the people in venezuala the people would never ever support Chavez and taking control.

The people feel those companies where doing more harm and ill to the society as a whole than letting Chavez take control.

Simple as that.


Posted by moneywar at 2007-05-01 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Exploitation!!! Taking oil for themselves!!! Power to the people!!!!

Moneywar, O'Reilly, and Chavez--Friends of Humanity!! Screw Big Oil, and Their Exploitative Ways!!!

LOL. So telling that Chavez knows he can't get anything done without the oil companies he's just looted playing along, because even though his country sits on one of the world's largest reserves, they lack the intellectual and financial know-how to get to it. And in ten years, when Venezuela remains at the bottom of the economic barrel, and there's nothing else for Chavez to steal "for the benefit of the people", the good citizens of Venezuela will realize what they've done.

Just how many times will Marxism be tried, and fail, before people get wise to it? Apparently for retards like Chavez, Moneywar, and O'Reilly, seventy years of Soviet Communism didn't provide enough learning material.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-01 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"Your wrong about royalties, Venezuela gets 16.6%. Not to mention upstream royalties."

Andrea, they used to get 1% on heavy crude. Now, it's higher, as well it should be.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


$War,


Whilst I disagree with some of your premises, I nevertheless appreciate the well-thought reply at 234.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-01 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


", they lack the intellectual and financial know-how to get to it."

That's baloney. There is nothing to prevent them from buying technology and hiring petroleum engineers.

"Just how many times will Marxism be tried, and fail, before people get wise to it? Apparently for retards like Chavez, Moneywar, and O'Reilly, seventy years of Soviet Communism didn't provide enough learning material."

Don't be stupid. I know you hate the fact the more of the profits are going to the Venezuelans rather than your beloved oil companies, but they are a long way off from Soviet style communism.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

That's baloney. There is nothing to prevent them from buying technology and hiring petroleum engineers.

* * *

LMAO. Thanks for making my point for me.

* * *

Don't be stupid. I know you hate the fact the more of the profits are going to the Venezuelans rather than your beloved oil companies, but they are a long way off from Soviet style communism.

Posted by Bill_OReilly

* * *

If that was his intention, why didn't he just raise their taxes? Nah--let's just take it!!! The American Left will love us, because of a few bad things we said about Bush!! Yeah!!!

Too funny. Gotta ask, though--using Chavez' fairly flimsy economic rationale, why shouldn't the US merely respond in kind? Why not nationalize Venezuelan assets here? Come on--you guys who are always arguing for level playing fields with China, how about taking over Venezuelan-flagged merchant carriers in the port of Tampa? How about seizing their bank accounts? Would you sign up for THAT? After all--what's the money doing here in the first place--shouldn't it be in Venezuela, helping the Venezuelans?

Too funny. Just when I think your grasp of economics couldn't be any more tenuous, you surprise again.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-01 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Who doesn't pay their bills, Andrea? Corporations operating in Venezuela?

"From what I could see, capitalism is thriving. Foreign oil interests continue to profit handsomely from Venezuelan petrol, but they now pay a fairer share of taxes and royalties. So do the 80 McDonald's restaurants in Venezuela, which were briefly shut down last year over alleged tax cheating.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"hy shouldn't the US merely respond in kind? Why not nationalize Venezuelan assets here? "

Fine. Let's see who benefits from that. Venezuela has huge oil reserve. We need oil. Go ahead, as your hero would say, "bring it on".

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


"ust when I think your grasp of economics couldn't be any more tenuous, you surprise again."

It doesn't have anything to do with an understanding of economics, dummy. It's a question of who owns Venezuela? Venezuelans? Or the oil companies? We know where you stand.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Well, it'll be Americans, Bill!!! We can take their money, and give it to poor people HERE!!! Tell me that isn't fair, huh? We can do the same for their gas stations and their supertankers!! We can sell it all off, and give the money to poor farmers in Appalachia, and welfare recipients in Chicago!! After all, why should wealthy foreigners be allowed to make money here, when so many native-born Americans are having such a rough time?

This is fun. I can just use the same press release Chavez used, and change some of the proper nouns around. Pretty easy!!!

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-01 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Guess my ExxonMobil stock will drop a little.

Posted by MSgt at 2007-05-01 11:40 AM | Reply

Why do they have a majority of their fields in Venezula?

BTW XOM is up .17

Posted by JimmyWallback at 2007-05-01 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


It doesn't have anything to do with an understanding of economics, dummy. It's a question of who owns Venezuela? Venezuelans? Or the oil companies? We know where you stand.

Posted by Bill_OReilly

* * *

I stand on the side of contract law, which says that if a company is willing to invest tens of billions of dollars in leases and equipment, he's a right to expect that a signatory to the same contract won't later steal all his money, his equipment, then expect him to work for free besides.

That's what side I'm on. And it's a comfort to know you're on the other.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-01 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


www.commondreams.org

Multinational companies and the old elite are doing fine in today's Venezuela. So well that some Venezuelan leftists denounce Chavez -- despite his talk of building "21st century socialism" -- as a tool of corporate imperialism.

Like other oil-exporting countries, Venezuela in the past allowed its domestic productive economy to atrophy. Besides oil, it produced little -- with food largely imported. Today, people in poor areas are organizing themselves into productive and agricultural co-ops, supported by low-interest government loans. We visited a federal bank that underwrites women-run businesses nationwide.

My guess is that if Chavez succeeds in Venezuela -- a big "if" in a country of endemic corruption, poverty and crime, in the backyard of the U.S. superpower -- its economic system will end up looking more like Sweden than Cuba.

What's not debatable is that the poor have found hope in the Chavez administration -- which is why he's perhaps the most popular president in our hemisphere. So popular that Chavez critics in the U.S. government and Venezuelan opposition concede that they won't be able to defeat him in December when he seeks reelection.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



And here's the best part: the Venezuelans' oil will pay for the whole thing!
The Alabama nation guard could take care of this over the weekend.

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-05-01 01:20 PM | Reply

I see you went to the same military school as Donald "I doubt the Iraq war will last six months" Rumsfeld.

Posted by JimmyWallback at 2007-05-01 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Moneywar-

A link to the other thread would have sufficed.

"I stand on the side of contract law, "

Yeah, and if contracts were written by previous, American backed dictatorial governments, they should be honored in perpetuity, right, even if the Venezuelan people had no say. Shmuck. You ever the concept of "odious debt"? Try odious contracts as well.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-01 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


As long as Citgo keeps giving away fuel cheaper than the other stations I am cool with it. I personally refuse to purchase gas from any of those stations, but I don't mind seeing this douche bag give his away cheaper than everyone else. at least his pockets won't be as fat.

The flip side is, if you are an A,erican company doing business in or with Venezuela, you might want to seriously reconsider. If you let Venezuelans run all their own entities I have a sneaky suspicion they will run them into the ground.

Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2007-05-01 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Sorry meant Shitgo....

Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2007-05-01 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


I personally refuse to purchase gas from any of those stations,

******************

Good more cheap gas for me.

Posted by JimmyWallback at 2007-05-01 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


So much for Bush's dream of raping, pillaging and privatizing all of Venezuela's natural resources.

I can see the tears in his eyes now.

Guess now it will be Hugo Chavez's turn to be the one Bush accuses of arming the Iraqi insurgents. Time to nuke.



Posted by CalifChris at 2007-05-01 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

......it's their oil and they elected Chavez democratically......

......let them do what they want with it...............


Posted by skizziks at 2007-05-01 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


I wonder who carried Big Oil's risk insurance?

Lloyds of London maybe?

Somebody will be forking over some big bucks for this.

Posted by Twinpac at 2007-05-01 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


I stand on the side of contract law,

I am going to violate my decided reasoning of not commenting about RIR and his dip of horse shit postings and rantings because nothing he ever says is close to actual real life social interactions, just money grubbing.

I stand on the side of contract law.......huh?.........since when???..........only until it benefits are lost to you is exactly how far you stand.

You stand behind the Enron employees and their loss?

You stand behind the United pensions lost to the employees?

You stand behind the contracts with labor unions in which are signed?

You're nothing but a lying mongrel weasel who flip flops back and forth to the side that will benefit you the most money at that particular time with little regard to what is actually the right thing to do.

Money is the only right thing to do in your glaring mind of social societal thoughts.

Posted by moneywar at 2007-05-01 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


LOL. OK.

Nah, Money. In my glaring mind of social societal thoughts, I think we should take over the Venezuelan gas stations, sell them, and give the money to America's poor. Surely, you can't have a problem with that, right?

Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-01 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

RiR have Venezuelan companies invaded our country and seized our natural resources they way oil companies have in Venezuela? I didn't think so.

I stand on the side of contract law, which says that if a company is willing to invest tens of billions of dollars in leases and equipment, he's a right to expect that a signatory to the same contract won't later steal all his money, his equipment, then expect him to work for free besides.


Get used to it. The more companies that up and leave the US to go to "greener pastures" the more this is going to happen. Countries will get sick of being used by these corporations and turn around and take what they think is rightfully theirs. It is all part of the game. If you want protection you better stay in the US where you can seek redress in the courts.

Ever heard of risk and reward analysis?

Posted by taxman at 2007-05-01 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Just like anything that goes too far --

Under Bush, the privatization and selling off of every U.S. government agency, highway, roads, natural resources, and government land has allowed his corporate pals to make obscene profits meanwhile downsizing millions of our workers out of a job and out of having a shred of U.S. sovereignty left for this country.

Countries will get sick of being used by these corporations and turn around and take what they think is rightfully theirs.
* * *

Uh huh. All those poor Venezuelans, kept in poverty by those big, mean oil companies.

Quick question. Here in the United States, we've been living side-by-side with the Exxon's, the Enron's, the railroad barons, the plutocratic factory owners--for a couple of hundred years longer than the Venezuelans have. So why aren't all the Americans poor, like their poverty-stricken comrades South of the Border? Do you suppose it's just possible that Venezuelans are poor, because of Venezuela? And the American oil companies don't have much to do with it? For that matter, why the hell are so many Venezuelans--as well as Peruvians, Brazilians, Mexicans, Argentines, Salvadorans--so desperately trying to get HERE? Don't they know we're just a country run by corporations?

LOL. Given the choice between living in Chavez' Venezuela or Bush's America, I wonder how many rational people would opt for Door Numero Uno?

Under Bush, the privatization and selling off of every U.S. government agency, highway, roads, natural resources, and government land . . . blah blah blah.

* * * *

Name 3. Name 3 government agencies that were sold off. Or even downsized. Name 3 highways.

Tell me again, why are we not drilling for oil in Alaska?

please, vas a el puerto numero uno, no hay comanias en este lugar. solomente hay dinero y comida para todo! el gobierno controla todo y por esto, nosotros estamos mejoramos que tu americanos!!!

vas a el pais donde no hay companias, iras muy alegre!

translation-if we are run by companies, then how are we not the worst off country in the world? why did socialism fail? gosh, Ris R, u should have just stopped after the russia point. if that didn't sink in, nothing will.

u mean i have to back up my allegations RisR?

-calichris

RisR, i don't have to name 3... i clearly stated, bush has sold off EVERY gov agency.

-CC

Given the choice between living in Chavez' Venezuela or Bush's America, I wonder how many rational people would opt for Door Numero Uno?

Posted by rightisright


Gladly I wood take door number uno in a hartbeat.

- Moneywar

One amusing by-product of Chavez' actions last night, is that American oil companies can claim a huge, tax-deductible writeoff on the equipment, and on the leases in question. If the total was, in fact, some $17 billion, as was reported in Bloomberg, the cost to the American taxpayer would be about $5 billion in lost federal tax revenues.

Maybe we'll pay for it by slashing the budget for foreign aid to poor countries. Wouldn't that be ironic?

LOL @ JJ. Clever.

Maybe we'll pay for it by slashing the budget for foreign aid to poor countries. Wouldn't that be ironic?

Posted by rightisright


I have to laugh at the postulations of this solipsistic repofundie.

Money is the only thing that matters to you. Nice prioreties.

- Moneywar

And the dr left celebrates!!!!!!

Well, yes and no. You could be right. And then again, you could be wrong. I'm just stirring the pot, because I don't know what I think.

--Jeff J.

And if you want to hear more details about what I may or may not think, email me!

--Jeff J.

Its OK that the Saudis took their oil back, but not Chavez. All despots are not created equal.

Chavez understands capitalism is system that forces people, through a false concept of private property, to pay for the goods they already have the right to own. This pressures the masses to work for a living instead of organizing and representing. We must move on and face the fact the individual is nothing, the collective is everything. We, the People's vanguard, would have no power if we were to rely on the individual. Abandon your puny notions of surviving with an individual mind, learn to think with the collective brain which speaks through our Party representatives. The rewards are obvious: in a collective you automatically gain the same rights and entitlements as the next member without moving a finger to earn them. Group reality gives one a strong feeling of selflessness, belonging, and protection. This is Chavez's first act of liberating public property from morally wrong private possession. Considered illegal under capitalist law and stigmatized by such non-words as shoplifting, looting, thievery, piracy, larceny, robbery, and vandalism. Marxism does not require a proficient knowledge of the works of Karl Marx as the proletarian instinct is already taking him or her in the right direction. Was legal in the USSR (a.k.a. collectivization). Also known as the "five-finger discount" in the inchoate radical sectors of the populace.

And the crowd of radical liberal Socialist Nazis on this board go crazy. The cheers for Chavez can be heard througout the United States.

Chavez sets a good example for all you leftwingnutbags. Government takeover of the evil oil industry. Income redistribution for all or at least those in the American Socialist Nazi Democrat party. Power to the people(really meaning those of us in control). Reeducation training for all the rest.

If it has been said before My Appologies. Time to do a Coup De Tat against Chavez. What right does He have to Nationalize the Oil Industry. Time to do an Iran Circa 1953/1954 on Him.

Signed the right

Larry

Well, yes and no. You could be right. And then again, you could be wrong. I'm just stirring the pot, because I don't know what I think.

--Jeff J.

Posted by Bill_OReilly


That was seriously funny!

A friend of mine went on a missionary trip to Venezuela a year ago. The conditions he described to me were appaling.

Chavez has been in power a long time already. Do any of you really think the people are going to receive the profits from the oil industry he just Nationalized(another word for broken agreement).

That was beautiful, Professor. It brought a tear to my eye. The proletariat is lucky to have you as a spokesperson.

- Bill O'Reilly

Yes, I agree, Jeff. The professor is a real revolutionary.

Happy May Day, Professor!

And Happy May Day to all my other comrades out there!

Why didn't Bush Light sign the goddam bill? Then he could move his troops over and invade Venezuela and overthrow the bad dictator! And put the oil fields back in the rightful hands of US corporations!

Why didn't they bribe him? Are they out of money after bribing our OWN officials?

Hell, gas went up 14 cents over the weekend, and 7 cents more today. And I just saw the government cash my income tax check and they've started work on a new aircraft carrier.

Socialist Nazi Democratic Party is an oxymoron.

When you have such a partnership between business and government as we have, that truly is fascism.

You must understand. There are capitalists and the people they've fooled (like fundamental religious nuts). You call them Republicas. So there's Republicans and there's everybody ELSE.

We're not all LIBERAL. We're just not all right wing fascists.

The dittoheads are really very misguided. The amazing thing is that so many of the vocal 'liberal haters', are wage earners whose employers look upon as just a commodity to be bought for the lowest possible price.

Real capitalists don't engage in this public crap of namecalling...other than those who own the media. Most just call their congressmen and slip em a thousand dollars just ahead of the pro business vote coming up in their committee.

It was very interesting, the other day, reading Buckley suggest that the Iraq war may signal the demise of the conservative party.

And of course anybody who's paying attention knows that Bush fooled all the big republicans...he's not a conservative at all. He's a cowboy who doesn't have the verbal skills to THINK without a teleprompTer.

So what? The oil there is like tar. He doesn't have the technology to maintain the facilities. The best thing about it is he will take more oil off the market and help force energy alternatives-I hope oil hits $10.00 a barrell

screw chavez..choke on the oil

You mean Chavez isn't being a true CAPITALIST?

Andrea,


Your friend and mine, BillyO, predicted that Venezuala would be more akin to Belgium than Cuba under Chavez.

How do you see it?

Why does the Cheney/Bush White House object to Chavez 'seizing' what already belongs to the Venezuelan people but expects the world to look the other way when they do the same thing in Iraq?

OCU

*pfffft* More Drivebyblogging by Andrea.

"PDVSA was the largest Latin American company in 2000, but in terms of efficiency it ranked among the lowest of the fifty most efficient companies"

And when was Chavez elected, Andrea?

BillO,


Drive-by-blogging?


Perhaps you should change your handle to 'Rush_Limbaugh'. ;-)

Andrea's the one to use the term "drivebyblogging", Jeff, even though she practices it more than anybody.

Ah!


So it's Andrea that is channeling Rush.

I guess that makes sense. You are too busy being wrapped-up in all of your Peabodies to emulate a different pundit.

It's bed-time for this weary Capitalist.


'Nite all.

Or should that be

Mornin' all.

I think the former makes sense. Or, perhaps the latter makes sense as well. I can't decide.

Why does the Cheney/Bush White House object to Chavez 'seizing' what already belongs to the Venezuelan people but expects the world to look the other way when they do the same thing in Iraq?

OCU

Excellent point, OCU.

Venezuela is not the only country in South America to start throwing off the shackles of American Hegemonic interference and control.

Troubles at the World Bank and IMF extend further than the "Loan Wolf" and his over-paid BushCo cronies and pillow pal.

Furthermore, they are beginning to throw out the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the past, the US could prevent unwelcome developments such as independence in Latin America, by violence; supporting military coups, subversion, invasion and so on. That doesn't work so well any more. The last time they tried in 2002 in Venezuela, the US had to back down because of enormous protests from Latin America, and of course the coup was overthrown from within. That's very new.

If the United States loses the economic weapons of control, it is very much weakened. Argentina is just essentially ridding itself of the IMF, as they say. They are paying off the debts to the IMF. The IMF rules that they followed had totally disastrous effects. They are being helped in that by Venezuela, which is buying up part of the Argentine debt.

Bolivia will probably do the same. Bolivia's had 25 years of rigorous adherence to IMF rules. Per capita income now is less than it was 25 years ago. They want to get rid of it. The other countries are doing the same. The IMF is essentially the US Treasury Department. It is the economic weapon that's alongside the military weapon for maintaining control. That's being dismantled

damn it to hell......when I do listen to michael savage I will usually scoff at him talking about how prevalent socialism is in this country....
and then this thread comes on and poster after poster proves him right and not me.....amazing.

and the left here has blamed bush for high gas prices and when gas gets even higher as this nutball makes those prices even higher.....who will they blame then......well of course they will blame bush somehow.........

and here's hoping that some of you who love this guy like you do castro....here's hoping that you have a lot of stock and money invested in some of this energy stuff.......so it will hurt you more than it hurts me...and that seems harsh but too bad......socialism has been proven to be a failure.....just read about cuba and its squalor and people starving even as they ration out beans.....but of course thats what liberals are all about...and socialists.....keeping people in that very situation so that they NEVER STOP NEEDING THEM................

and this could be made to be insignificant anyway......but that means we would have to actually drill and build refinaries....and the left wont touch that.........and why?

OK, I will plead ignorance here. But how is the Venezualan (sp?) government owning the oil fields and refineries any different that what is going on in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. Or what is being proposed for the Oil in Iraq? The problem as I see it is whether the people in charge of the gov truely use the profits for the benefit of the people or they just line their own pockets. I am not sure the Royal family in Saudi Arabia is any different from the people who run Exon or any of the other countries. If Chavez uses the profits to help ALL the people of Venezuela, rather than line the pockets of a few, then how is that a bad thing?

Those oil fields are privately owned. Chavez owns them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty much ignoring the entirety of human history.

Why should I care if oil companies own the oil fields or if the people own the oil fields?
What is in it for me and the rest of the American people?
Corporate profits flowing to oil companies do not benefit me in the slightest.
Their money buys our Congress and owns our president and I am supposed to care that they may lose some of their huge profits in Venezuela???
What I am wondering is when Bush will decide it is time to bring democracy to Venezuela.

danni......your lack of interest will be seen at the price at the pump and then you will just lay the blame on bush and the right.....there are more than a couple of economic connections between houston and this prick and there are people here who are very worried about thier jobs and livelyhood....and they are as far from the corporate boardroom as you and I are.....with 14 per cent I believe it is of our oil from there, the economic repercussions could be severe..........for LOTS OF REGULAR PEOPLE.

"your lack of interest will be seen at the price at the pump and then you will just lay the blame on bush and the right"

Gas prices are at an all time high at a time when we are occupying some of the richest oil fields on the planet. This is happending under a president who has close ties to the oil industry (who are recording all time profits at a time when we're fighting a war that concerns them much more than the public at large).

So if you must blame someone for high oil prices, who would it be logical to blame?

sure sully.....go right ahead and then we will talk about who was to blame when they went down again......oh wait......the left is silent on the issue when that happens.
and then there is of course the democratic BLOCKING of oil exploration and drilling and refining and then we have to listen to them blaming bush.....

here we go again......."and the music goes round and round and it comes out here"

and I am sure that you would agree that we should conserve..........and now there are reports....and this is HEARSAY and uncomfirmed.....that while she was 'debating' she sent her private jet half way up the eastern seaboard to get another one.......because she didnt like the way the seats were configured......IF thats true, then she is not part of the solution.....or she just doesnt think this applies to her.......just like gore and edwards.......

"and this is HEARSAY and uncomfirmed....."

The bullshitlovertwo's "standard" of "proof."

Hans

hans.....ditto to your same shit from the other post...........

"hans.....ditto to your same shit from the other post..........."

What? The fact that you never offer any proof, bullshitlovertwo?

Yeah. I'll "ditto" that.

Hans

BL2 - But you seem all ready to blame Chavez the next time oil prices rise. I'm just saying that private ownership of oil fields does not keep prices down. Private oil companies are making money hand over fist while America is sinking further into debt fighting a war that concerns them much more than it does the average American. Do you think companies were gouging the government and the public like this during WWII? All corporations care about now is their profits. So to pretend that private ownership is any more moral or less greedy than a communist gangster simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Have John Edwards sue them.He is a fool

""danni......your lack of interest will be seen at the price at the pump and then you will just lay the blame on bush and the right.....""

Bull shit. Corporate profits and salaries are paid out of my gas dollars now. I'll take my chances with Hugo Chavez's desire to benefit the Venezuelan people instead of a few rich and greedy corporate execs. Personally, I would feel fine even if the prices do rise so that the idiots who continue to buy SUVs finally get the message. Europeans pay much more for gas than us.
The government hasn't raised CAFTA standards in how long??
Conservatives worry about how to continue the past instead of developing new technologies to get off oil dependency. America will benefit by being forced to finally realize the oil age is over.

"Europeans pay much more for gas than us"

No they don't, they pay higher taxes for gas than us. And with the fall of the dollar against the euro, oil is getting even cheaper for them.

"America will benefit by being forced to finally realize the oil age is over."

ROFLMAO!!!

danni......your lack of interest will be seen at the price at the pump

Bull shit, you continue to post ignorant shit like RIR, Joe, Jeff J. and company without really knowing crap.

Oil has very little to almost nothing to do with the price of GAS. In fact the price of oil moves at some points in time due to the price of gas.

The exxons and companies regulate the supply of GAS to their advantage to raise the price.

Simplistic version here for you stupidity like all others who think oil is the gas controller.

Ever wonder why the demand for oil has only risen 2% since 2000 but yet what has gas prices done. Global thinking now.

$War,

Oil has very little to almost nothing to do with the price of GAS.


You are completely wrong. In the past, charts have been posted on similar threads that breakdown the various components the make up the price of gas. Over half of the cost was tied to the price of crude.


Bull shit, you continue to post ignorant shit like RIR, Joe, Jeff J. and company without really knowing crap.


LOL!! Hans coined the term 'the self-retorting retort'. That term perfectly applies here.

Only 9 Years ago gasoline was selling for .799 a Gallon. Now it's way over 3 Bucks some places. Corporate greed run amock. Makes Me wish I knew how to roller skate without busting My ass wide open.. Oh well shit happens.

Larry

"LOL!! Hans coined the term 'the self-retorting retort'."

;0) Thanks, JeffJ, for remembering.

How about a blast from the past? The first use of that term (when I was posting as A_Friend):

Posted on: Four Contractors Killed by Iraqi Mob

"These guys were killed by insurgents who are foreigners to Iraq. They were Sunni Arabs. Sunnis are minorities in Iraq. My bet is that they are foreigners, though."

This is what is known as a self-retorting retort.

A Friend

Posted by A_Friend at 2005-10-23 05:19 PM

My pleasure, Hans.


The term is so widely used here on DR that I felt compelled to attribute it's creator.

I didn't realize that it dated back to the "A_Friend" days though!

You guys are all missing the larger point. Chaevz has just let the entire world know that any profitable investments within the nation of Venezuela may be nationalized at any time, "for the good of the people."

In one fell swoop he has just affected a major risk increase to any potential investment in Venezuela. Now, it is patently obvious to me that there are few business saavy posters here on the "D," but those that are know that an increase in risk muct be accompanied by an increase in profits if it hopes to draw investors. After all, what rational investor is going to accept higher risk on an investment when they could resonably expect the same results with less risk? Maybe all the Chavezites could invest on principle, supporting socialism, defeating capitalism, whatever, but it would be a rational investment decsion for an investor looking for a decent investment opportunity.

Nationalization always ends up being a goatrope, and it will hurt the people of venezuela. No question. It is already suffering from an economic decline, and has been since Chavez took over. Cuba has been a stagnant backwater with no hope of progress for almost fifty years now, and Cuba is a relative success story. Haiti is another country that likes to nartionalize, and look what it got them. Allende's nationalization of Chilean industry led dirreectly to that country's revolutiuon, and the rise of Augusto Pinochet (the fact that the country would prefer a murderous dictator over an economy-trashing socialist quasi-dictator speaks volumes.

Chavez is going to ruin Venezuela, but ultimately that is their problem. I suspect he will pilfer enough of the oil money that he can flee to Cuba for protection with the gig is finally up.

""Chavez is going to ruin Venezuela,""

Gee, I thought conservatives believed in "democracy." Apparently, the Venezuelan people feel they are doing better than they were before Chavez.
Those who claim Venezuela is doing poorly really mean that the wealthy class of Venezuela is not receiving its traditional large share of the wealth.
China is our largest trading partner, is still ruled by Communists and has improved its economy significantly since 1949 so it kind of disproves claims that socialism is such a terrible thing for poor countries. Most nations that do use socialism to redistribute wealth eventually create a middle class which then begins to go back to a free market economy but without the lopsided balance of wealth between the aristocracy and the working class.

"Gee, I thought conservatives believed in "democracy." Apparently, the Venezuelan people feel they are doing better than they were before Chavez."

So did the German people when they elected Hitler. Then Hitler went on to consolidate his power to the point where he no longer needed any sort of quorum, which allowed him to rule outside the confines of the constitution.

Chavez has done the exact same thing, and there is no longer a viable democracy in venezuela. The government is comprised almost entirely of people he has appointed, and this has allowed him to nationalize assets that were currently off limits according to the VZ constitution.

Democracy without a constitution is two wolves and a sheep arguing over what to have for dinner. .

"Those who claim Venezuela is doing poorly really mean that the wealthy class of Venezuela is not receiving its traditional large share of the wealth."

Not the wealthy class, the productive class. The wealth produced by the productive class is no longer going to the producers to the degree that it was. Instead, a majority of it is being appropriated by the state, for the good of the kollektive. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this provides little incentive for the productive class to stay productive, and when I was in college, (2000-2003) there were already a few Venezuelan expats I knew taht had moved due to the deteriorating situation there.

The unproductive class is unlikely to change. It exists in VZ, the US, and everywhere else, and without a producitve class that is willing to support them, the paradigm will prove to be unsustainable. Chavez needs to be courting the productive class, not using them as a scapegoat for societie's ills. He also needs to demand some responsiblity of the poor that they are interested in making a contribution to their own well being.

Of course that is as politically undesirable in VZ as it is in the US. No one likes to be told that their problems are due to their own shortcomings.

"China is our largest trading partner, is still ruled by Communists and has improved its economy significantly since 1949 so it kind of disproves claims that socialism is such a terrible thing for poor countries."

If you truly beleive that China is communist, then you lack the mental capacity to comment on such matters. Furthermore, Mao trahed that economy for years, and it has only been in past decade, as the government has moved away from the traditional communist model, that the country has prospered.

"Most nations that do use socialism to redistribute wealth eventually create a middle class."

That is dead wrong. Did you just make that up?

The middle class exists because and even in spite of government intervention. A middle class would be unsustainbale in the long run, if it were forced to rely on redistribution. The key to the growth of any productive class, and the MC is a productive class, is flexibility and the ability to adapt to changing labor/consumer markets. That's what allows them to be productive. the unproductive class could care less about chaing trends in labor markets, if they did, they would be out trying to take advanatge of them.

Aristocracy, or even enromous wealth, can only be produced and maintained through the consent of society. Bill Gates got rich because everyone wants a copy of Windows or Office. No one was forced to buy them. Even the useless Paris Hilton made $6M in 2005 because Hardee's thought she made a good spokes person.

Wealth is not created in Vacuum. It exists because society deems it valuable. Some people are simply better at creating value than others are, and society (read: consumers) are willing to reward them for it. What need is there for government to interfere?

"The wealth produced by the productive class is no longer going to the producers to the degree that it was. "

What a lot of arrogant, elitist, Ayn Randian bullshit. Let's see the so-called "productive class", the oligarchy, roll up their sleeves and go into the factories, the farms, the oil fields, and see how much they can produce.

...Wealth is not created in Vacuum. It exists because society deems it valuable. Some people are simply better at creating value than others are, and society (read: consumers) are willing to reward them for it.

What need is there for government to interfere?

Bull.
Huge disportionate wealth exists not because "society deems it valuable" but because 'huge wealth' has bought and paid for the politicians (from the top down) who make (or dispense with) the laws/rules/regulations in order to implement the favorable business conditions (no matter how much it hurts the middle class and poor) that help wealthy in the U.S. get ever richer while the middle class sinks to the bottom.

(whew, that was a long sentence even for me.)

"What a lot of arrogant, elitist, Ayn Randian bullshit. Let's see the so-called "productive class", the oligarchy, roll up their sleeves and go into the factories, the farms, the oil fields, and see how much they can produce."

Tell you what Bill, you can spend your days trying to build a successful society with a class of people incapable of contributing anything other than the sweat on their brows. Good luck with that.

The difference between the dude on the factory floor and the dude in the corner office is very simple. The dude in the corner office could very easily go down and replace the low-skilled worker on the factory floor. It is very highly unlikely that the floor worker could move up to the corner office and successfully manage operations. When you own your own firm, feel free to prove me wrong...just don't experiement with any of my assets.

Furthermore, society will reward an individual more for working in the corner office because:

A) Thier brand of labor is more scarce, and therefore more valuable.

B) they contribute more to society through successful management than by pushing a button or flipping a lever on a factory floor.

I fly jets for the Air Force. My dad is a farmer. I could easily, EASILY, do his job. There is no way he could do mine.

"Huge disportionate wealth exists not because "society deems it valuable" but because 'huge wealth' has bought and paid for the politicians (from the top down) who make (or dispense with) the laws/rules/regulations in order to implement the favorable business conditions (no matter how much it hurts the middle class and poor) that help wealthy in the U.S. get ever richer while the middle class sinks to the bottom."

Classic Marxist Dogma if ever there was. Can you explain to me what Bill gates did to ensure that government favored him over others. What about Larry Ellison? Jeff Bezos? Warren Buffet.

As you know, the answer is that government did nothing, and in some cases, the gov't was actually conspiring against them despite the popularity of their products. At the very least, the goevrnment wants the tax revenues these guys will generate.

The best way to improve profitability is to limit competition. That's the whole purpose of the labor union, and it should be expected the industry, just like unions, will pressure the gov't to favor them. That has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of wealth, on the amount that is captured by the firm. if you are being tough on industries for limiting competition, you need to be tough on unions for the same reasons.

Tell you what Bill, you can spend your days trying to build a successful society with a class of people incapable of contributing anything other than the sweat on their brows. Good luck with that.

Tell you what Madbomber, you try to build a successful society without workers. Good luck with that.

"Tell you what Madbomber, you try to build a successful society without workers. Good luck with that."

That's exactly what I'm talking about friend. keep in mind, that work is only valuable when it is deemed as such by society, and society generally doesn't give a fuck who makes the goods they consume or where they come from. If I can strawberries or steel from workers in Indonesia for half the cost of buying it from workers in the US, I won't buy from workers in the US. At that point, the value of their labor effectively drops to zero. They have nothing to offer me at a wage I am willing to pay. In fact, they have nothing to offer that I couldn't do myself if it came down to it. Even with an MBA, I am still fully qualified for unskilled labor. I simply choose not to because society rewards me more for the skills I do possess.

The US economy has transitioned from manufacturing to services. Workers are still needed, but the demand is for skilled workers; engineers, accountants, programmers, etc. It's these workers than comprise the productive class. There is still a need for unskilled labor, but it far below what it was in the 1970's, and even the 1980's. It is the responsibility of laboe to adapt to changing markets, and the markets demand more of laborers now than it would have 30 years ago, and if you don't have something to offer that will differentiate you from the average third-world labor unit, you really need to reconsider what you expect out of life. My role on planet earth is not to ensure 100% employment for those that are unwilling or unable to do it on thier own. In fact, I would resent anyone that expected that of society. The best thing you can do, for society and yourself, is to not be a burden. Even better, be an assett. That means doing something that is considered valuable by society. once you do that, rewards and rents will follow.

"It's these workers than comprise the productive class. "

Thanks for the clarification. Still, defining people who only offer "the sweat of their brow" as non-productive is absurd. Those "non-productive" workers are essential.

"Thanks for the clarification. Still, defining people who only offer "the sweat of their brow" as non-productive is absurd. Those "non-productive" workers are essential."

they are only necassary where there is demand for that type of labor. In the US, that was very much the case for a long time. If I were in somewhere like Sudan, it would be my skills that would be less valuable.

"hey are only necassary where there is demand for that type of labor."

What are you talking about? Even in a total service economy, with no manufacturing base at all, you will still have hamburger flippers, dishwashers, etc.

JimmyWallback wrote,

"I mean who else would cut taxes on one of the most insanely profitable industries in the world?"

Jimmy the oil industry has paid twice as much in taxes over the last 25 years as they have made in profits. How would you feel if the government let you keep 33 cents out of every dollar you made?

Think about it this way every time you feel up on $3 gas if the government quit taxing gas alltogether the price would drop more than at least 50 cents a gallon right there.

Its interesting the approach the left takes toward the Oil Industry. Like it is some kind of evil monster independent of the same pros and cons of any ofther business in america.

Oil companies employ hundreds of thousands of american workers. Their stock is owned by a tremendous number of americans. They pay substantially more in taxes than any other industry in the U.S. So when a ordinary stockholders share price goes up or he/she is issued a dividend leftists are really just attacking America. Of course hatred of the U.S. is one of the big tenets of the liveral left.

You liberals here have done your job well, praised Chavez, spit hate at Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharmaceuticals, and of course Wal-Mart. Bonus checks are in the mail soon.

Don't you mindless lemmings ever get tired of your leftwing nazi marching orders? Especially from trial lawyers like John Edwards.

"leftwing nazi marching orders?"

Ding! You get the prize for first Nazi reference of the day!

Moron.

Mike, somebody beat you to it.

lol, I had double take at this blog, as it had the same link, and topic of what I posted in the user blogs...lol

I send my congrats to the person who "beat" me to this blog...I guess I have to be faster next time...lol

Clinton is his CEO

Hey, JJDumbfuck, why don't you learn how to post?

"What are you talking about? Even in a total service economy, with no manufacturing base at all, you will still have hamburger flippers, dishwashers, etc."

You would only have those if thier marginal value was equal to the marginal cost to consumers. If firms were forced to pay more for this labor, it would drive up the cost to consumers, who would reject the product once cost outweighed benefit. At that point, there wouldn't be any demand for the burger flippers and dishwahsers.

Since the huge majority of minimum wage earners (read: burger flippers, dishwasher) are new entries to the job market, they are the ones hurt most by wage laws. Low skilled jobs for teens are valuable not only in what they provide to society, but in what they provide to young workers as well. It is in these early years of a workers life that the develope the ethics and patterns that will serve them for the rest of their lives.

"At that point, there wouldn't be any demand for the burger flippers and dishwahsers. "

You're about as much in touch with reality as a mainstream economist. There's always going to be demand for those jobs, at least until the population decides to stop going out to eat and prepares their own food.

And . . . this just in. Chavez is now threatening to nationalize the banks and the steel companies.

apnews.myway.com


Posted by rightisright at 2007-05-03 10:13 PM | Reply

Would You pitch a bitch if say Dubya were to do the very same thing??

Larry

Um, let me think about that one for a second. Yes.