TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
Oh Argentina...
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [2,391]  1 ... 41 42 43 44 45
46
47 48 49 50 51 ... 96

Oh Argentina...:

Well, I believe that any country has the right, if there laws allow for it, to expropiate any company which deals with non renewable resources such as oil.

If anything Argentina could simply take away their permission to exploit oil and all the infrastructure the company has developed there instantly becomes useless so is more or less the same thing.

If Foreign investors dont like it, well, then dont invest in Argentina, but if the democraticallty elected goverment decides to expropiate said company lawfuly then they have all the right to do so.

Its like Mexico Nationalization its oil companies in 1930. And at that time they didnt take 51% of the shares of a company but all the shares of all the companies.

Furthermore Spanish Goverment continues to steal and plunder from South America even at this time and age, besides destroying the rights of its workers and the futures of its citizens... so I dont have any symphaty either for that countrie´s goverment or Private Sector.

edited 16th Apr '12 5:00:29 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
 1127 Director Cannon, Mon, 16th Apr '12 5:04:34 PM from A cornfield in Indiana Relationship Status: I want you to want me
Prima Donna Director
[up] Spain is ...what?
"Urge to thump... rising." -Fighteer
 1128 Joesolo, Mon, 16th Apr '12 5:37:03 PM Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
[up][up] Did you just say SPAIN Is destroying the workers rights?

edited 16th Apr '12 5:37:11 PM by Joesolo

I am going to shove the sunshine so far up where the sun don't shine that you will vomit nothing but warm summer days -Belkar
Euo will do!
<goggles at Baff>

Seriously? OK. Fine. So... if Britain decided, suddenly to yank a company's assets away from it just like that to nationalise it, and that company was... oh, say 75% Argentinian... And did this without any remuneration such as buying it out legally... you'd be fine with that, then? After all, within national boundaries, yada-yada, better for the British workforce yada-yada...? And, it's all good, after all... what does a jumped up Third World Country know about running anything that really belongs to us, anyway?

<please note: I am only turning your own argument back on itself in a different context to try to get you to think about it>

Can you see where what you've said would make you explode if I were serious about all the above?

edited 17th Apr '12 12:55:58 AM by Euodiachloris

"When all else failed, she tried being reasonable." ~ Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb
 1130 Stormtroper, Tue, 17th Apr '12 12:53:40 AM from somewhere Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
Fairy warring
The jingoism in this thread almost hurts.

I personally believe that countries do have the right to nationalise corporations, if they're willing to buy them from the previous owners (so countries can't just take things but they can force someone to sell.)

This is, at least from a legal point of view, exactly what's going on. 18 billion, tentatively.

edited 17th Apr '12 12:59:59 AM by Stormtroper

...and that's how I ended up in the wardrobe.

It Just Bugs Me!
Euo will do!
Sorry — was coaching my post in opposite jingoism to try and jolt another's standpoint to help them look at their own argument from another angle.

I also believe that a country does have the right to control natural assets within its own internationally agreed borders, as long as all legal channels and international contracts are met.

Unfortunately, it doesn't smell like that's what's happened here, but I'll look into it more.

[up] Yeouch: you are going to sell us those shares at a cut of (I'm having trouble getting a concrete figure on this) about 40% and rising. And, no, you can't take this to an ombudsman. And, no: you don't have another choice. Bye. And, say good bye to over 30-years of mutually-agreeable investment you were counting on in the future. Nice. tongue

Another ouch: that's a lot of talent going back to Spain (and/or other parts of the EU), then, too. Some that would actually be needed to train up replacements to keep that puppy going. Have you seen where most of the high-tech workers actually come from? The EU. (Just been to their site... man, but that's a beeping sound you grow to hate...)

So, yeah: go ahead, renationalise it by buying it out... but, give yourselves and the company a break. Do it in a 3- or 5-year planned easing or something. This way, an awful lot of eggs are going to be broken making that omelette.

edited 17th Apr '12 2:26:43 AM by Euodiachloris

"When all else failed, she tried being reasonable." ~ Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb
Engrish scholar
Doesn´t smell well at all. The Kitchner family sell the company to Repsol. They support all the actions of the company and one day the start yelling that "they broke the agreement signed with Argentina". Instead of apply the legal punisment they already have, they just try to low the shares of Repsol and make a new law to take it without problems and paying what they want.

Im not very friend of expropiations. I´ve seen too many urban planning mafias.

edited 17th Apr '12 2:09:00 AM by Picheleiro

Lord of Castamere
This is ridiculous. I was just watching the Senate discussing the expropriation and a senator from the opposition gave a coherent argument (if she was wrong or not is YMMV) and then 2 senators from Kirchner's party answered only in Ad Hominems. I have to go now, when I get back I will try to search for the video so I can post it here. Disgusting.

edited 17th Apr '12 1:52:11 PM by Anfauglith

Instead, I have learned a horrible truth of existence...some stories have no meaning.
 1134 Joesolo, Tue, 17th Apr '12 2:30:32 PM Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
[up] A lot of politics is like that now. It pisses me off BIG time.
I am going to shove the sunshine so far up where the sun don't shine that you will vomit nothing but warm summer days -Belkar
Euo will do!
[up] Too true: decent, well thought out arguments should be listened to, not bombed out the water 'cos you don't like the other side's guts.

Also: about the legal thing. Sure, this is legal. So was the seizure of goods and assets in wartime Germany. For that country, at that time. Now... moral under pre-existing international treaties and laws, as well as later domestic ones? Different story can very easily be argued.

I'd've thought Argentina as a whole would be rather more wary of these types of moves. They scream older days, and can too easily be turned around on private businesses within the state, as well. And, that has happened before. Seriously: somebody should be actively going against a government doing these type of dickish things, otherwise you can wave good-bye to any form of democratic freedom way too easily. Oh, and wave good-bye to personal assets, as well. The general population does not need or deserve that.

Even if you wrap it up in pretty red tape, state-sponsored theft is still theft.

edited 17th Apr '12 4:18:29 PM by Euodiachloris

"When all else failed, she tried being reasonable." ~ Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb
@Euodiachloris

Yes. England has every right to nationalize any Latin American Company that are there, if, said nationalizations are legal.

In fact, countries have MORE OF A RIGHT, to nationalize the companies of foreigners than the companies of nationals, since a nation looks after its own interests.

Nationalization of foreing companies is demonized becuase, as most of you have been educated in nations that were built upon imperialism, then we couldnt allow that to happen, could we?

In the end, this agreement, will either be struck down by an argentinian court, or it will go to a comitte in the World Bank (cant remember its name), whihc, if it finds Argentina guilty of violating any international agreement, will go on to freeze Argentina´s foreing assets. If Argentina, did, in fact, violate and international agreement.

Now... the nationalization of Repsol coul be worth more than the foreign assets if the Argentinians find a way to exploit the Vaca Muerta site.

In the end, I rather live in a country that steals the Oil companies, than in a country that is stolen by them *cough*¨United States *cough*

edited 20th Apr '12 9:57:34 AM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
 1137 Game Chainsaw, Fri, 20th Apr '12 10:10:09 AM from sunshine and rainbows!
The Shadows Devour You.
Baff actually makes a valid point regarding the corruption endemic in big oil, in his point that this is a resource that may be best controlled and directly extracted by the country that owns the oil, even if he confuses the issue with accusations of imperialism despite the fact that South American nations were more or less founded on it.

Baff, you have to understand that any accusation of imperialism levelled at America or Europe from a South American perspective, that does not take the entirety of Spanish colonial history into account, will be treated as hypocritical. Despite that, I see your point. A hypocritical point can still be valid.

However, one thing you might want to take into account. The company doesn't buy the oil. They buy the right to drill for that oil, a service they are charged for by the country that controls the oil. The country then makes that company pay through the nose to extract that oil through tax at all stages of the refining and marketing process. So by licensing the Spanish company to drill, and then seizing the assets, the Argentine government has essentially backstabbed them. There is also a history of incompetence and inefficiency in Brazillian owned oil companies, a record which is only now starting to improve.

EDIT: And for the love of the Gods call us Britain.

edited 20th Apr '12 10:36:53 AM by GameChainsaw

Engrish scholar
@Baff

I will say nothing now about rights and stuff because, althought I disagree with you, It feels messy to me and dont want to start and endless post chain.

So I will twist the issue:

Do you really think that take the control of YPF It´s good to Argentina?

Because, knowing the history of the players involucrated, I wouldnt believe that. Someone in Argentina It´s going to win, but I doubt It wil be his people.

 1139 Caissas Death Angel, Fri, 20th Apr '12 12:51:46 PM from Dumfries, SW Scotland Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
Spain prepares a response, US takes it's side, they're confident of EU support as well.

This could go badly for Argentina, especially if they want international suppot for their Falklands position.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
 1140 Nohbody, Fri, 20th Apr '12 3:57:30 PM from Somewhere in Dixie Relationship Status: Mu
Just zis guy
This is possibly better suited to the 2012 elections thread, but I wonder who's calling the shots in the Obama administration, given that only a few days ago Obama himself said that the US would remain neutral in the dispute between Argentina and the UK, and he's backed (IIRC) the Argentinian call for negotiations that ignores the wishes of those living on the Falkland islands.

Yes, I realize that the two issues (YPF nationalization and the Falklands) aren't the same thing, but both ultimately come down to the US's position towards Argentina.
 1141 Joesolo, Fri, 20th Apr '12 4:09:59 PM Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
He's backing the spanish because they're right in this case, and he dosn't want to greenlight other countries doing the same thing.
I am going to shove the sunshine so far up where the sun don't shine that you will vomit nothing but warm summer days -Belkar
 1142 pagad, Fri, 20th Apr '12 4:30:31 PM from perfidious Albion Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Sneering Imperialist
It's kind of ironic that Obama's the most popular US president for decades in Britain given the lukewarm attitude he's so far given to UK relations.
It's because he's not bush. And because they recognize that they may be back to dealing with bush levels of stupid in the near future.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Do you really think that take the control of YPF It´s good to Argentina?

Yes. At least the nationalization of gas companies did wonders for Bolivia, which has been growing per average 5% GDP since Evo Morales took power, and which was one of the few countries in the American continent which didnt see its GDP fall to negative numbers (it grew at about 2%) during the 2009 recession.

"even if he confuses the issue with accusations of imperialism despite the fact that South American nations were more or less founded on it. Baff, you have to understand that any accusation of imperialism levelled at America or Europe from a South American perspective, that does not take the entirety of Spanish colonial history into account, will be treated as hypocritical. Despite that, I see your point. A hypocritical point can still be valid."

Sorry I dont get what you are trying to say... And... How am I being hypocritical? I dont know. I just pointed a bias which naturally arise among citizens of nations which depended heavily on the colonization and explotation of 3rd world countries for their own development. Not in the 16th or 17th century, but on the 19th and most of the 20th century.

There is also a history of incompetence and inefficiency in Brazillian owned oil companies, a record which is only now starting to improve.

Wait? Werent we talking about Argentina? Or were you predicting my next line of argument? Becuase, I was about to say, Argentina doesnt actually need private partners to help it drill since there are many local partners such as Petrobras, PDVS, or ECOPETROL that could privide pleny of assistance.

And for the love of the Gods call us Britain.

Well, my arguments are usually aimed at england, and not at scotland or Wales...

So by licensing the Spanish company to drill, and then seizing the assets, the Argentine government has essentially backstabbed them. There is also a history of incompetence and inefficiency in Brazillian owned oil companies, a record which is only now starting to improve.

This might be true. Still, the Spanish company did not follow up with its agreement and was in the way of a resource of vital strategic value to a nation. Furthermore, said company was only partially owned by the spaniards, and had been before a public company. The company in question was like 57%. Lastly, the decision, if taken, will be democratic, and it will regard, as I said before, a matter of vital and extreme public interest, without violating anyone´s human rights, thus, this decision, as much as a backstab it might be, emanates from the sovereignity of the Argentinian people.

edited 20th Apr '12 6:14:17 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
 1145 Caissas Death Angel, Fri, 20th Apr '12 6:24:02 PM from Dumfries, SW Scotland Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
England however is not doing anything on its own. England doesn't have its own government, and hasn't had one for 300 years. It is the British government that does everything, so please refer to us as Britain.

You're being hypocritical by referring to British imperialism without acknowledging the fact that Spain was imperialistic on an equally bad scale as Britain, and Argentina - and many other South American countries - exist as they do now because of it.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
[up]

Alright. But, dont get me wrong. I think the Spaniards were WORSE than the Britsh.

Latin American countries exist in direct opossition to Spaniard and American imperialism, and despite them.

But my award to the worst emperial powers would go to Belgium or France. So I dont know where you got the notion that I thought Britain was imperialistic and Spain not. In fact, if Britain had not stolen Las Islas Malvinas, then they would have a pretty good track record when it comes to South America (they wouldnt have one).

edited 20th Apr '12 6:29:48 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
 1147 Octo, Fri, 20th Apr '12 6:29:00 PM from Germany
Prince of Dorne
Baff, you have to understand that any accusation of imperialism levelled at America or Europe from a South American perspective, that does not take the entirety of Spanish colonial history into account, will be treated as hypocritical.
This is borderline racist. By the same token, I as a German could not condemn genocide or attack wars?
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken.

Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
Euo will do!
<sighs>

Baff, would it help if I told you I grew up in South Africa, and got fed a whole load of all that colonial hatred and major shoulder-chip as a kid? (Not to mention all the "all the British are evil mother-killers" line I got given, as well.) I am not coming from a strictly British perspective, as most of my life has actually been spent outside the place. Then I moved, and, boy... did I get a surprise, as things were not like I had been taught in school. Warped views are exactly that.

Yes, colonialism was awful. It was ethically and morally reprehensible on very many levels. Nobody denies that. However: ascribing those practices to modern governments is a little disingenuous, when often, you're talking about the practices of multi-national conglomerates said governments have little control of (they're rather good at finding cracks in law).

And, yes, before you get at me about the original dynamic that codified colonialism in the first place... I know about the Dutch and British East India Companies (the hint is in the names). I am also well aware the the Dutch East India Company did what it did, even though the Netherlands had actually had a foretaste of Spanish international practices, itself (something few remember). In fact, many policies later tried out in South America got started in parts of Vlaams (Flanders). The whole region wasn't called The Spanish Netherlands for nothing. Didn't stop the VoC from acting like jerks now, did it?

I've been taught about both from different angles, now. In short: what triggered colonial attitudes started out as rather unethical (by our standards) business grabs by private companies. It was when said companies got "nationalised" that Empires were created.

I now boil when people use their horrible colonial past as a justification to punish others however they wish as a form of revenge. All the time screaming 'justice'. It also saddens me, because... well... it's just making the same old mistakes that repeat the cycle. Hence why I think the Argentinian government is acting in a way which should send red flags.

I'm not excusing international business practices. Nor British, Spanish or American governmental policy on various issues. I am saying that two wrongs don't make a right, and muddling through shouldn't mean stealing. By any side. Especially when it's going to land in international courts. Yes, take grievances to the courts, but make sure you don't shoot your case in the foot, first. It's just not smart.

<sighs>

edited 20th Apr '12 7:00:40 PM by Euodiachloris

"When all else failed, she tried being reasonable." ~ Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb
[up]

The thing here is, I am not talking about the West Indies company.

I am talking about Chevron, Chiquita, Coca Cola, Drummond, and about the dictatorships that the United States set up in Latin America.

When we talk Colonialism in South America (and most of the world) we think 19th and 20th century, where as when you talk about it in Europe people tend to think 16th century. There is a big difference and I am arguing about the latter and not the former.

Besides, one can not deny the United States and Europe are considerably richer by virtue of their rescent colonial past.

And no one is talking about "revenge". I am just highlighting a bias that the "first world" has when dealing with the "third world" which would be that the nationalization of companies owned by foreigners is specially outrageous, which is a concept that has no grounds on morality or economics, but on the grounds that it was a direct attack againt economic colonialism that was exercised throughout most of the 20th century by the United States and by many European companies.

the west loves democracy, until said democracies go against the ecomic interests of the west, then they pretend that there is no democracy or sovereignty in said democracies

Besides, all political and economical thought in South America is shaped by the very rescent colonialism that we experienced over here. Finally, after years of intimidation the nations of South America, might they be left leaning or right leaning, are becoming truly independent and are beggining to pursue their own intersts instead of being satellite states to foreign powers.

Ive lived in South America, Spain, the United States and Japan so I think I might have a good vintage point about the situation if that helps at all.

edited 20th Apr '12 9:12:01 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
 1150 Tam H 70, Fri, 20th Apr '12 9:32:14 PM from 合計虐殺 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
War ALWAYS changes. Man does not.
Obama popular with Britain? Well. Not for me. I never liked the man from the first time I saw him in the primaries. He is going to win a second term because the republican candidates are worse.
Total posts: 2,391
 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45
46
47 48 49 50 51 ... 96


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy