Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Argentina to nationalise Spanish controlled Oil company

13

Comments

  • #62
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    I clicked on it :D.

    Being serious I just have a severe distrust of economists of all political stripes. I just consider it to be guesswork pretending to be a science.

    As do I in many cases. But my skepticism of economics as a science is nothing compared to my distrust of Governments acting in clear bad faith as is the case with the current Argentine administration.

    She's defrauding her own people to consolidate power and lying to them when it comes to inflation. Now she's attempting to defraud a significant investor which could, as has been pointed out, increase the risks for her people by depriving them of any source of investment to actually exploit their shale oil resources.


  • #63
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    RichieC wrote: »
    If it means a better and fairer society for the Argentinians then the end justifies the means IMO.

    Anything can be justified that way.
    At the end of the day it likely means a few percentage points from a heap of millionaires hedge funds, you won't find me shedding many tears for them.

    Ah, so theft is ok as long as it only affects the wealthy!

    Also, I think it's a tad naive to think that only the wealthy invest in shares these days. Many Irish pensioners depend on investment funds for their income.


  • #64
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #65
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Einhard wrote: »
    Well then you don't know the definition of theft

    And maybe you should look into this old fashioned concept called democracy.


  • #66
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    benway wrote: »
    And maybe you should look into this old fashioned concept called democracy.

    Democracy operates under strict rules. Maybe you should look up the even older fashioned concept called mob rule.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Democracy operates under strict rules.

    What, things like free elections, a bicameral legislature, a written constitution, an independent Supreme Court capable of upholding said constitution, etc.? Seems to me that Argentine democracy is in a much healthier state than it was under Menem.

    Repsol probably should have read the small print:
    Article 17. Property is inviolable, and no inhabitant of the Nation can be deprived thereof except by virtue of a judgment supported by law. Expropriation for reasons of public utility must be authorized by law and previously indemnified. Congress alone imposes the taxes mentioned in Article 4. No personal service can be required except by virtue of a law or a judgment supported by law. Every author or inventor is the exclusive owner of his work, invention or discovery for the term granted him by law. The confiscation of property is stricken out forever from the Argentine Penal Code. No armed body may make requisitions, or demand assistance of any kind.


  • #68
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    RichieC wrote: »
    If it means a better and fairer society for the Argentinians then the end justifies the means IMO. since the EU is backing their 10bn claim and they take it to international arbitration than they'll likely get the bulk of it.

    At the end of the day it likely means a few percentage points from a heap of millionaires hedge funds, you won't find me shedding many tears for them.

    How would this amount to a 'better and fairer society'? The burden of the Argentine government's disastrous economic policies have fallen disproportionately on working class and poor people (whose ranks have been growing). These are the people whose savings were decimated by the forced peso conversion and currency devaluation in 2002 and who have seen their purchasing power destroyed by double-digit inflation. Wealthy people can move their money and assets out of the country; average people do not have that option.

    A century ago, Argentina was the wealthiest country in Latin America, and had higher living standards than many European countries. Today, its neighbors Chile and Brazil lead the region for relatively stable growth - Brazil's middle class is growing apreciably, and Chile is even a member of the OECD. The governments of these two countries still have huge stakes in national energy and commodities countries, and all three have in some way benefitted by the commodities boom of the last decade, yet Argentina's investment climate has darkened as unhappiness with both inflation and government policies have grown. And most of the economic problems can be traced not to Washington, but to the fact that no Argentine government since the late 1990s has been willing to address the out-of-control populist spending that threaten macroeconomic stability.

    Leaders like Kirchner who give two fingers to the US and to international companies and creditors are routinely applauded in some quarters. But this seems to be based on reflexive anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism, rather than an actual cost-benefit analysis of these policies. So for those who support the actions of the Kirchner government, I would like to ask: please show us some evidence that Cristina (or Nelson, for that matter) Kirchner's policies have improved the standard of living for the average Argentine: has there been a positive effect on employment? Cost of living? Access to medical services? Happiness with quality of life? Anything will do at this point. Because, frankly, I have seen nothing of the sort.


  • #69
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    She's nothing like the crook Ahern. He'd have handed the oil fields over to foreigners in return for a bung, I suspect.

    no, she is probably more like Yeltsin and all the other Russian crooked politicians who prevented foreign investment and handed over their country's riches to oligarchs


  • #70
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    How would this amount to a 'better and fairer society'? The burden of the Argentine government's disastrous economic policies have fallen disproportionately on working class and poor people (whose ranks have been growing).

    I think the consensus is that it was Menem's adoption of neoliberal policy that has been the greatest economic disaster post-dictatorship. This may explain people's appetite for anything that looks like the opposite of neoliberal. Maybe not a sound basis for policy making in itself, but I can't blame them.

    According to UNDP, there have been massive strides under the Kirchners:
    Argentina’s recovery from this crisis came rather quickly and was noteworthy in several dimensions. First, economic growth jumped to 8.7 percent in 2003 and has been around that level until 2008. Secondly, and as a result of targeted social support measures, poverty dropped in 2004 and by 2006 it was below what it had been in 2000. Figure 11 shows that by the first semester of 2008 poverty had dropped to 17.8 percent. Extreme poverty had fallen to 5.1 percent. This is a remarkable accomplishment. The urban unemployment rate fell to 8.7 percent in 2006 and to 8.0 percent in the first quarter of 200826. This vigorous recovery places Argentina’s poverty rates well below the regional average. As expressed in the National Human Development Report 2005, economic growth is not an end in itself but a mean to enhance human capabilities and enrich the array of peoples’ possibilities. Poverty is not only defined by income but has also cultural dimensions. Human development as a social construction reaffirms that values, beliefs and expectations are as important as markets and institutions for a better life. The impressive recovery of Argentina cannot be understood without taking into consideration its social fabric: citizens who were able to organize and defend their rights, who were able to act responsibly and trust on the quality of their institutions27.


  • #71
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    How would this amount to a 'better and fairer society'? The burden of the Argentine government's disastrous economic policies have fallen disproportionately on working class and poor people (whose ranks have been growing). These are the people whose savings were decimated by the forced peso conversion and currency devaluation in 2002 and who have seen their purchasing power destroyed by double-digit inflation. Wealthy people can move their money and assets out of the country; average people do not have that option.

    A century ago, Argentina was the wealthiest country in Latin America, and had higher living standards than many European countries. Today, its neighbors Chile and Brazil lead the region for relatively stable growth - Brazil's middle class is growing apreciably, and Chile is even a member of the OECD. The governments of these two countries still have huge stakes in national energy and commodities countries, and all three have in some way benefitted by the commodities boom of the last decade, yet Argentina's investment climate has darkened as unhappiness with both inflation and government policies have grown. And most of the economic problems can be traced not to Washington, but to the fact that no Argentine government since the late 1990s has been willing to address the out-of-control populist spending that threaten macroeconomic stability.

    Leaders like Kirchner who give two fingers to the US and to international companies and creditors are routinely applauded in some quarters. But this seems to be based on reflexive anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism, rather than an actual cost-benefit analysis of these policies. So for those who support the actions of the Kirchner government, I would like to ask: please show us some evidence that Cristina (or Nelson, for that matter) Kirchner's policies have improved the standard of living for the average Argentine: has there been a positive effect on employment? Cost of living? Access to medical services? Happiness with quality of life? Anything will do at this point. Because, frankly, I have seen nothing of the sort.

    Too early to say anything about Argintina, lets take an analogous country, say, Venezuela:
    (2009, so I imagine they've been hit, like us and the rest of the world by the global crash)
    The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflationadjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.
    Most of this growth has been in the nonoil sector of the economy, and the private sector has grown faster than the public sector.
    During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and does take into account increased access to health care or education.
    Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.
    Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in inequality.
    Real (inflationadjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.
    From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than onethird. The number of primary care physicians in the public sector increased 12fold from 1999-2007, providing health care to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.
    There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999/2000 to 2007/2008.
    The labor market also improved substantially over the last decade, with unemployment dropping from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. During the current expansion it has fallen by more than half. Other labor market indicators also show substantial gains.
    Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries has more than doubled.
    Over the decade, the government's total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP.
    Inflation is about where it was 10 years ago, ending the year at 31.4 percent. However it has been falling over the last half year (as measured by threemonth averages) and is likely to continue declining this year in the face of strong deflationary pressures worldwide.

    http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    liammur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭liammur


    Well as a large shareholder in IL&P when the Ir Govt took everything from shareholders, I share their pain, and hope they get something back.


  • #73
    Soldie
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Soldie


    RichieC wrote: »
    Too early to say anything about Argintina, lets take an analogous country, say, Venezuela:
    (2009, so I imagine they've been hit, like us and the rest of the world by the global crash)
    The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflationadjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.
    Most of this growth has been in the nonoil sector of the economy, and the private sector has grown faster than the public sector.
    During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and does take into account increased access to health care or education.
    Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.
    Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in inequality.
    Real (inflationadjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.
    From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than onethird. The number of primary care physicians in the public sector increased 12fold from 1999-2007, providing health care to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.
    There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999/2000 to 2007/2008.
    The labor market also improved substantially over the last decade, with unemployment dropping from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. During the current expansion it has fallen by more than half. Other labor market indicators also show substantial gains.
    Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries has more than doubled.
    Over the decade, the government's total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP.
    Inflation is about where it was 10 years ago, ending the year at 31.4 percent. However it has been falling over the last half year (as measured by threemonth averages) and is likely to continue declining this year in the face of strong deflationary pressures worldwide.

    http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf

    What does any of that have to do with the price of milk? :confused:

    How is it an analogous example?

    (Oh, and would you like some parmesan cheese with your copypasta?)


  • #74
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Orogonally posted by benway
    I think the consensus is that it was Menem's adoption of neoliberal policy that has been the greatest economic disaster post-dictatorship. This may explain people's appetite for anything that looks like the opposite of neoliberal. Maybe not a sound basis for policy making in itself, but I can't blame them.

    According to UNDP, there have been massive strides under the Kirchners

    Massive from what though? The baseline year for those figures is 2003 - of course poverty reduction and unemployment figures look good, given that this was the rebound period from the disastrous 2002 crash. From 2000, the figures are more modest. And, notably, inflation is missing from those figures, and inflation more than anything else erodes the living standards of poorer people, for they spend a larger percentage of their income on basic goods.

    As for the 'consensus', whose consensus might this be? Argentina crashed for similar reasons that Ireland did: they pegged themselves to a stronger currency in order to provide a modicum of macroeconomic stability, but still engaged in profligate fiscal policy, with relatively predictable results: massive government debt and economic chaos. This isn't about Menem, it's about governments consistently talking out of both sides of their mouths in adopting strict macroeconomic policies, but running loose fiscal policies. The Kirchners are just lucky that Chavez has been willing to subsidize this nonsense by buying their toxic debt.
    RichieC wrote: »
    Too early to say anything about Argintina, lets take an analogous country, say, Venezuela:

    Stop right there. This thread is about ARGENTINA. Why are you pulling Venezuela into this?


  • #75
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Stop right there. This thread is about ARGENTINA. Why are you pulling Venezuela into this?

    No fair, do the full quote
    RichieC wrote: »
    lets take an analogous country, say, Venezuela:
    (2009, so I imagine they've been hit, like us and the rest of the world by the global crash)

    In the midst of an oil price bubble we should assume that a major oil producing economy has taken a hit... I really didn't bother reading any further.

    It is clear. David McWilliams has convinced a section of the Irish electorate, through fair means or foul as Later12 so succinctly explained previously that Argentina is the poster child for default.

    Thus any suggestion that Argentina is now in an unhealthy bubble seems to undermine that and must be rejected at any cost.


  • #76
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #77
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Be that as it may, Argentina is a poster child for failed neoliberal reforms - any textbook or general paper on development lists it alongside East Asia, Mexico etc. as a classic example of neoliberalism gone wrong. Couple of examples:

    http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Rise_and_Collapse_of_Neoliberalism_in_Argentina__The_Role_of_Economic_Groups.pdf
    http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International%20Affairs/Blanket%20File%20Import/83_187-108.pdf

    Go here if you don't believe me.

    At page 6 of that UNDP report there's a set of data - poverty rate was 42% in 1990, 33% in 2000, 53% in 2002, 27% in 2006, and falling. But they've set out with unemployment, rather than growth or inflation as their target, so they're regarded as crazy. Easy to forget that demand side approaches were the accepted wisdom not so very long ago. Suppose that if you'd proposed cutting your way out of a recession to a bunch of economists 40 years ago, you'd have gotten a similar reaction.

    Now, whether they've lost control of inflation or whether they're just departing from the neoliberal hegemony with no better reasoning than neoliberalism = bad, not neoliberalism = good remains to be seen. But I think that this rush to judgment is quite telling - more than anything else, they're guilty of heresy.
    Permabear wrote: »
    Because of this, they defend and champion any and all policies pursued by such regimes, even when the outcomes of said policies are demonstrably disastrous.

    We meet again. The thing is that the Kirchner approach hasn't yet been shown to be disastrous. But neoliberalism demonstrably was disastrous for Argentina.


  • #78
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    As I mentioned at the start, where a lot of other countries previously had a good historical claim for nationalization (e.g. private rights granted through corruption or coup), there doesn't seem to be that here with Argentina.

    I don't know enough about the wider protectionist arguments to say 100% that nationalization is wrong though, so what are the general protectionist arguments that support it? (it's hard to get a full picture reading through the thread)

    I understand that it's written in law that the state can do this, e.g. like the state presumably could do here with someones land, for a major infrastructure project, but there'd need to be a good argument for it; I'm not sure what such an argument might be here?


  • #79
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    As I mentioned at the start, where a lot of other countries previously had a good historical claim for nationalization (e.g. private rights granted through corruption or coup), there doesn't seem to be that here with Argentina.

    I don't know enough about the wider protectionist arguments to say 100% that nationalization is wrong though, so what are the general protectionist arguments that support it? (it's hard to get a full picture reading through the thread)

    I understand that it's written in law that the state can do this, e.g. like the state presumably could do here with someones land, for a major infrastructure project, but there'd need to be a good argument for it; I'm not sure what such an argument might be here?

    It's not really a protectionist argument, as I understand it, it's a "markets always deliver more efficient outcomes" argument - open to correction, obviously.

    This is a quite limited form of nationalisation, as I see it. 17% of shares will remain on the open market, and it isn't clear that tariffs, etc. are part of the arrangement.

    The moral side is more difficult - while the Menem regime, under whose watch the economic collapse and privatisation occurred, were up to their eyeballs in corruption, I am not aware of a direct link between corruption and the YPF deal, such that would make a nationalisation morally straightforward. Plus, Argentina has a nationalistic, authoritarian past, which may lend itself to to this direction, without providing a rational basis.

    But, I would maintain the right of a democratically elected government to nationalise industries if the public supported it, although only if the holders are paid a fair price. It's a simple question of democracy, above all else. If the company feels aggrieved, they should have recourse to the domestic courts before going further, and let the government explain themselves.

    It's clear that they're swimming against the ideological tide in doing this, and some people are outraged - its not supposed to be a thing of nationalisation, it's supposed to be a tale of more and more privatisation. It's a brave move, whether it'll succeed is another question entirely.

    This paper, as above, gives a good overview of the backstory:

    http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International%20Affairs/Blanket%20File%20Import/83_187-108.pdf


  • #80
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,470 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    RichieC wrote: »
    If it means a better and fairer society for the Argentinians then the end justifies the means IMO.

    In that case do you agree that it was the correct decision for the de Kirchener government to seize $29 billion in private pension money from Argentine citizens in 2010?


  • #81
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Ya I don't know; even with good public support, think it would need more backing it, for complete nationalization.

    I would argue that there should be some increased benefit to Argentina from the natural resources situated about their territory, and they did not know what resource discoveries would be found when they (I presume) sold the rights, so there's probably argument in favour of after-the-fact renegotiation there.

    It does seem like it needs to be balanced between Argentina and the private interests though; it was a bad move in my opinion, selling the company (and presumably those resource rights), but it was a mistake made and seems a more appropriate solution here may be a negotiation of increased tarrifs on the newly discovered resources (or well, something like that; getting a bigger cut of the new resource profits basically).


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    benway wrote: »
    Now, whether they've lost control of inflation or whether they're just departing from the neoliberal hegemony with no better reasoning than neoliberalism = bad, not neoliberalism = good remains to be seen.

    She's lying to her people. She is lying to her electorate. But because "right wing governments were bad for Argentina" (no dispute from me there by the way), you're willing to brush her lying to her people under the carpet as a "departure from neoliberal hegemony"?

    I'm not saying that socialist Governments can't work, or even that they're not appropriate for South America. I'm saying that this government is bad, this government which is seeking to mislead its population is bad. This government which is not nationalising YPF to benefit the people of Argentina, but which is nationalising YPF to protect itself at the expense of its people, is bad.

    Where are they going to get the money to develop the shale oil? Where are they going to get the expertise? If this was really about the people controlling their resources she'd have waited until the infrastructure was in place to extract the shale oil, and then nationalised. But with her book cooking she doesn't have that long.

    An alternative would be to wait until the shale oil production came on line, and then without nationalizing the stake in YPF the Gov could slap a 55% tax on the profits which would ensure that the majority of the profits went to the people of Argentina without the negative repercussions of nationalizing the stake. High tax rates on mineral extraction are pretty standard, even in the UK, to reflect the fact that the mineral resources should benefit the people.

    But those would be the options if it was intended to actually benefit the Argentine people.


  • #83
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    She's lying to her people. She is lying to her electorate. But because "right wing governments were bad for Argentina" (no dispute from me there by the way), you're willing to brush her lying to her people under the carpet as a "departure from neoliberal hegemony"?

    It's a fair cop - I freely admit that I think the neoliberal project has been an abject failure, everywhere in the world it's been tried, including Europe and the US, obviously, so I would be delighted to see countries finding a workable alternative. Again, I would like to think that it's uncontroversial to suggest that there's a desperate need to move to a Post-Washington Consensus Consensus, even Francis Fukuyama of all people has admitted as much.

    Now, simply rolling back to the approaches of previous eras, which were not without their own problems, wasn't much the solution I had in mind, but there you are.
    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    I'm not saying that socialist Governments can't work, or even that they're not appropriate for South America.

    Which is a reasonable position, I'm not sure that everyone is quite so balanced, though.
    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    I'm saying that this government is bad, this government which is seeking to mislead its population is bad. This government which is not nationalising YPF to benefit the people of Argentina, but which is nationalising YPF to protect itself at the expense of its people, is bad.

    This remains to be seen. My impression is that the Kirchners have been good for Argentina, in general, and that there's mass support for the nationalisation agenda - again, whether that's down to deceit, a nationalistic hangover from the generalissmo era, blind antipathy to anything associated with neoliberalism, or tangible benefits, I do not know.

    Is this the lie you're talking about? That they've got ulterior motives in the nationalisation?
    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Where are they going to get the money to develop the shale oil? Where are they going to get the expertise? If this was really about the people controlling their resources she'd have waited until the infrastructure was in place to extract the shale oil, and then nationalised. But with her book cooking she doesn't have that long.

    Equally, remains to be seen. I would like to think that these things have been considered, maybe they haven't - if it's the latter, the government will collapse soon enough, incompetence on this scale couldn't survive.
    KyussBishop wrote:
    Ya I don't know; even with good public support, think it would need more backing it, for complete nationalization.

    Personally, I would have thought that pursuing energy self-sufficiency would be a legitimate policy goal behind this kind of move.

    I'm not an expert in Argentinian constitutional jurisprudence, but I'd imagine that Repsol have the option to bring the government to the - apparently independent - Supreme Court, have them explain themselves, show that the their approach is reasonable and proportionate, that the compensation paid is adequate, and try to have the law struck down. That's how it works in a democracy - checks and balances.

    If they think the Court is biased, or has made an irrational decision, then they should go running to the WTO, not as their first recourse.


  • #84
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    benway wrote: »
    This remains to be seen. My impression is that the Kirchners have been good for Argentina, in general, and that there's mass support for the nationalisation agenda - again, whether that's down to deceit, a nationalistic hangover from the generalissmo era, blind antipathy to anything associated with neoliberalism, or tangible benefits, I do not know.

    And Bertie was good for Ireland right up to the moment when he was not. Bertie was popular in Ireland right up to the moment that he was not. That's the point.
    benway wrote: »
    Equally, remains to be seen. I would like to think that these things have been considered, maybe they haven't - if it's the latter, the government will collapse soon enough, incompetence on this scale couldn't survive.

    Exactly, and the level of pain which the average Argentine will experience will make our experiences in the period of our bubble collapsing pale into insignificance because this Government is alienating the international community, they've alienated the IMF. When it all goes wrong, and it will all go wrong, they'll have no one to help them cushion the blow besides maybe Chavez.
    benway wrote: »
    I'm not an expert in Argentinian constitutional jurisprudence, but I'd imagine that Repsol have the option to bring the government to the - apparently independent - Supreme Court, have them explain themselves, show that the their approach is reasonable and proportionate, that the compensation paid is adequate, and try to have the law struck down. That's how it works in a democracy - checks and balances.

    If they think the Court is biased, or has made an irrational decision, then they should go running to the WTO, not as their first recourse.

    You're assuming that everything is fine and fair when all of the evidence points to it being anything but. The Government is not playing fair on this, and the checks and balance you put so much faith into are not helping in relation to the statistics, Central Bank reserves, or indeed anything else that this Gov wants to manipulate.

    Oh and please, stop with the whole "neoliberal" arguments. I'm not a libertarian, I don't place blind faith in the markets, I don't think business should always profit at the expense of the worker or hold any of the other positions you seem to want to ascribe to me.

    I have no problem with the concept of compulsory purchase of assets if done fairly and for the right reason. My personal preference would be not, but to use the tax code to extract a significant benefit for the people out of those assets, but if compulsory purchase is the way to go, its the way to go.

    The problem is that it is not here. Shale oil extraction is difficult, it is expensive, it requires an expertise that the Argentine State does not have.

    As we can see from the Russian example, Arctic oil extraction is difficult, it is expensive, it requires an expertise that the Russian Government do not have so they had to bring in a super major (Exxon in the end after the aborted BP deal).

    If you have potentially huge resources, but you can't get to them what do you do?

    If I have a million euro in a bank account I can't access, am I really rich? If I can't get at it, should I not consider offering someone else 500k if they can help me get to it? The 500k I end up with in my hand is worth more than the 1m I can't touch.

    The acquisition of the YPF stake will have set back Argentine shale oil extraction by a decade. The YPF acquisition will thus reduce, rather than increase, Argentine oil independence in the short to medium term.

    It is a populist stunt by an increasingly desperate administration. As we Irish really should have learned from the bubble, just because something is popular in the short term, doesn't make it right in the long run!


  • #85
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Oh and please, stop with the whole "neoliberal" arguments. I'm not a libertarian, I don't place blind faith in the markets, I don't think business should always profit at the expense of the worker or hold any of the other positions you seem to want to ascribe to me.

    Not saying that you are. Why it's important, and impossible to ignore, is in terms of context - all of this has to be read in terms of the neoliberal collapse and backlash ...
    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    It is a populist stunt by an increasingly desperate administration. As we Irish really should have learned from the bubble, just because something is popular in the short term, doesn't make it right in the long run!

    ... meaning that measures like nationalisations will be massively popular, whether they're a good idea or not. As I've been saying all along, it could easily just be a logic of neoliberalism = bad, not neoliberalism = good.

    I don't know, though, I think there's more at play here in terms of regional dynamics, US weakness - I don't think this would have happened pre-Afghanistan / Iraq / credit crunch - and an increasingly multi-polar aspect to world politics, with Latin America asserting independence from US domination. Of course, it's quite possible that you're right, and maybe there's nothing more to it than desperation and/or incompetence, but I'm not convinced just yet.


  • #86
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    benway wrote: »
    As I've been saying all along, it could easily just be a logic of neoliberalism = bad, not neoliberalism = good.

    Except that as I've explained, I don't ascribe to the school of neoliberalism being good to begin with, so I am not criticizing it from that point of view.

    You're oversimplifying it by running back to the same tired straw men.

    Nothing is going to convince you that this is a short sighted effort to protect its base, by a corrupt Government, baring the actual collapse of that Government and unfortunately the economic collapse of that State (again).

    So I don't think there is any further discussion to be had until that, unfortunate event, happens.


  • #87
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Except that as I've explained, I don't ascribe to the school of neoliberalism being good to begin with, so I am not criticizing it from that point of view.

    You're oversimplifying it by running back to the same tired straw men.

    Nothing is going to convince you that this is a short sighted effort to protect its base, by a corrupt Government, baring the actual collapse of that Government and unfortunately the economic collapse of that State (again).

    So I don't think there is any further discussion to be had until that, unfortunate event, happens.

    Exactly, I think this needs to play out a bit further before it becomes apparent whether there's anything more to it than you're suggesting - as I say, you could be right, but these are interesting times.

    On the neoliberalism thing, I'm not saying that it's you, or anyone else here who subscribes to it, I'm saying that the it seems that Argentinian public are massively against anything that could be described as Washington Consensus styled, and pro anything that that goes against that grain.

    Overly simple? Probably. Prone to exploitation for political purposes? Without a doubt. A sound basis for policy making? Maybe not, but part of me thinks/hopes that it just might work. Either way, that's my perception of the political situation, rightly or wrongly.

    Will definitely be one to watch as it develops, we can be certain of that much.


  • #88
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    benway wrote: »
    Overly simple? Probably. Prone to exploitation for political purposes? Without a doubt. A sound basis for policy making? Maybe not, but part of me thinks/hopes that it just might work.

    Well, I will join you in hoping that this works out well for the people of Argentina. But I reserve the right to not offer them any sympathy if it does not.


  • #89
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Oh and please, stop with the whole "neoliberal" arguments. I'm not a libertarian, I don't place blind faith in the markets

    I would just like to make the point that neoliberal =/= libertarian. Neoliberal reform was often brought about by using the power of the US state to influence the state apparatus of less powerful states; the Chilean experience of neoliberal experiments would be a good example.

    Libertarians (minacrchists) believe that the state's role should be to enforce contracts and ensure law and order - not statecraft by proxy. Anarcho-capitalists believe there should be no state monopoly of force at all.


  • #90
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I would just like to make the point that neoliberal =/= libertarian.

    I didn't think it was. I inferred from his amazement that I could even admit that a socialist government is not necessarily a bad thing, that the poster I was arguing with conflated the two - no doubt due to the particular influence being brought to bear on South America during the Regan administration.

    Sometimes, pedantry misses the point.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    I didn't think it was. I inferred from his amazement that I could even admit that a socialist government is not necessarily a bad thing, that the poster I was arguing with conflated the two - no doubt due to the particular influence being brought to bear on South America during the Regan administration.

    Sometimes, pedantry misses the point.

    Hmmmmmm .... treading carefully here, have no desire to open this particular can of worms. But it is kinda an interesting point in itself.

    Wasn't amazed, or presuming your views - there are plenty around here for whom socialism is a dirty word. My personal opinion is that neoliberalism is to libertarianism as communism is to socialism and Fianna Fáil is to republicanism, a horribly compromised, twisted "pragmatic" version. They draw language and a façade of ideological coherence from the "big idea", and may even implement elements of policy on that basis, but ultimately it's driven by vested power interests rather than ideas. Whether politics will ever be otherwise is doubtful in the extreme to me. [/ramble]
    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Well, I will join you in hoping that this works out well for the people of Argentina. But I reserve the right to not offer them any sympathy if it does not.

    But, while I'm here, this is a bit harsh I think. If your worst case is in fact true, then they'll have gone from the generals to Menem's corrupt populism and mismanagement, to Kirchner's incompetence and mismanagement, I would have every sympathy. Out of the pot, in to the frying pan, in to the fire.

    But, again, how this will pan out remains to be seen, there's still the possibility of an emerging Latin consensus - I have my doubts on that, even, it seems to me that rolling back to a pre-Menem arrangement it about the height of their ambitions, rather than anything new. Too soon to tell, imho.


Advertisement