Uh-oh...another communist/socialist on the rise in South America

cawacko said:
My company invests billions of dollars of capital across the globe in institutional real estate and we will not touch Latin America with a ten foot pole. Now we take risks, i.e. investing in China, but if it was your fiduciary responsibility to guard this money would you trust Latin America and people like Hugo Chavez with billions of dollars?
Click to expand...

I think from an eduadorian citizen's perspective, the question is not how much profit their oil can make for an investor in San Francisco. The question for them, is how to best manage their non-renewable resources in the public interest.

You said state ownership of natural resources, in and of itself, was detrimental to investment:

Cawacko: By the state stepping in and taking over privately run assets for example. How much confidence do you think that inspires in investors looking to place capital?


The fact is that the Norwegian government, through their state owned oil company, controls 60% of the nation's oil resources. (from previous link). In contrast, countries like Ecuador and Venezuela own about 40 to 50% of their nations oil resources, through their national oil companies.

So, norwegian oil is at least, if not more, controlled by the government than is Ecuadors or Venezuela's. Yet I've never, not once, heard bush voters and libertarians cry foul at the Norwegians. Why? Probably because we still sort of consider south american nations to be our pseudo colonies, who must do as we want.

The issue of investment in south america, is thus more related to the rule of law and political stability, moreso than the simple nature of public ownership of oil resources. No rightwinger is crying tears, or pissing their diapers, over the norwegian government control over norwegian oil.
 
your kidding USC can't discuss economics at a high school level. He shoots barbs at both sides zero substance.
 
I've never advocated, and don't think 100% nationalization of oil, is a good idea.

A certain level of private investment is always good. Some countries have figured out the proper balance, in terms of their needs, i.e., Norway.

As far as I know, Pemex in Mexico is the only example of a country that allows zero foreign investment in the energy sector.
 
Cypress said:
I think from an eduadorian citizen's perspective, the question is not how much profit their oil can make for an investor in San Francisco. The question for them, is how to best manage their non-renewable resources in the public interest.

You said state ownership of natural resources, in and of itself, was detrimental to investment:

Cawacko: By the state stepping in and taking over privately run assets for example. How much confidence do you think that inspires in investors looking to place capital?


The fact is that the Norwegian government, through their state owned oil company, controls 60% of the nation's oil resources. (from previous link). In contrast, countries like Ecuador and Venezuela own about 40 to 50% of their nations oil resources, through their national oil companies.

So, norwegian oil is at least, if not more, controlled by the government than is Ecuadors or Venezuela's. Yet I've never, not once, heard bush voters and libertarians cry foul at the Norwegians. Why? Probably because we still sort of consider south american nations to be our pseudo colonies, who must do as we want.

The issue of investment in south america, is thus more related to the rule of law and political stability, moreso than the simple nature of public ownership of oil resources. No rightwinger is crying tears, or pissing their diapers, over the norwegian government control over norwegian oil.
Click to expand...

I work in real estate so I don't really care about oil. But I can tell you political ideology doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to investing your clients money. Our clients are all state government employees. Do you think they are a bunch of Republicans?

Our investors (the money is state employees retirement funds) care about returns. And if there is fear some dictator is going to step in and just take over property we've invested millions (or billions) in the f that, we are not investing there. As far as Norway I've never had to deal with them so I don't know how much institutional real estate they have. I'm sure several of our European funds are investing in them if they like it.
 
oh, and cawacko? The richest and most stable nation in the arab word, United Arab Emirates, has a government that owns 100% their domestic gas resoruces, and a majority ownership of its oil resources.

They don't seem to be collapsing economically.
 
I've seen plenty of rightwing outrage that Venezuela, or Ecuador dare to want to have majority public ownership of their domestic petroleum resources. I've heard claims that government majority-control over natural resources leads to economic disaster and calamity.

Where they, has the outrage been, over United Arab Emirates? A stable, relatively liberal, and rich arab country, who's government control's the nation's oil wealth, and redirects it into healthcare and social services....


The late Sheikh Zayed, ruler of Abu Dhabi and president of the UAE at its inception, was quick to seize on the potential of the oil industry.

He oversaw the development of all the emirates and directed oil revenues into healthcare, education and the national infrastructure. -- BBC
Click to expand...


Is their economy collapsing, because of government control over oil resources? It doesn't appear so.
 
Usmoron don't change the subject after you get your head shoved up your ass.
The prob most have with Chavez is him giving our fat poor free oil as his county starves.
 
Cypress said:
I've seen plenty of rightwing outrage that Venezuela, or Ecuador dare to want to have majority public ownership of their domestic petroleum resources. I've heard claims that government majority-control over natural resources leads to economic disaster and calamity.

Where they, has the outrage been, over United Arab Emirates? A stable, relatively liberal, and rich arab country, who's government control's the nation's oil wealth, and redirects it into healthcare and social services....





Is their economy collapsing, because of government control over oil resources? It doesn't appear so.
Click to expand...

Cypress, if there's one thing the kingdoms of the UAE aren't, it's "liberal". Of course, a person like you, who associates liberalism directly with how much the government owns, would think like that. But the UAE uses foreigners as slaves, has no democracy, no free speech, and no freedom of religion. OF COURSE a person like you could only call that liberal because you don't care about that, only nationalization. You're a conservative, not a liberal.
 
Watermark said:
Cypress, if there's one thing the kingdoms of the UAE aren't, it's "liberal". Of course, a person like you, who associates liberalism directly with how much the government owns, would think like that. But the UAE uses foreigners as slaves, has no democracy, no free speech, and no freedom of religion. OF COURSE a person like you could only call that liberal because you don't care about that, only nationalization. You're a conservative, not a liberal.
Click to expand...


Please don't twist this off into a debate about semantics. There's too much of that on this board.

Also, please re-read my post. I said that in the Arab world, UAE is relatively liberal. By arab standards. That's about an accurate a statement as has ever been made on this board. UAE is a relatively tolerant and liberal society, relative to their arab neighbors, and fellow muslim countries.


Edit: yep, I checked. That's exactly what i said:

A stable, relatively liberal, and rich arab country, who's government control's the nation's oil wealth,
Click to expand...


google has thousands of hits for UAE and "liberal"

The United Arab Emirates is currently one of the most liberal societies in the Middle East and amongst the wealthiest in the entire world.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/84697/united_arab_emirates.html
Click to expand...


Lets not play the semantics game. Its tiresome.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
oh, and cawacko? The richest and most stable nation in the arab word, United Arab Emirates, has a government that owns 100% their domestic gas resoruces, and a majority ownership of its oil resources.

They don't seem to be collapsing economically.
Click to expand...

I'm very aware of the UAE. Abu Dabai is the largest sovereign account in the world. As a matter of fact they are our second largest client. A lot of my current work is focused on that account.

Notice they started diversifying out of just oil revenue in the late '70's and how well they are doing today.
 
Cypress said:
I've seen plenty of rightwing outrage that Venezuela, or Ecuador dare to want to have majority public ownership of their domestic petroleum resources. I've heard claims that government majority-control over natural resources leads to economic disaster and calamity.

Where they, has the outrage been, over United Arab Emirates? A stable, relatively liberal, and rich arab country, who's government control's the nation's oil wealth, and redirects it into healthcare and social services....





Is their economy collapsing, because of government control over oil resources? It doesn't appear so.
Click to expand...

Outside of the U.A.E. which I told you has completely changed their economy which is why they are where they are today what country that has taken over means of production be it real estate, oil etc. is considered a top tier economy or a growth country?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top