Solution to gas prices: Nationalization

Have you checked the tax rates in those countries?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography

Web Site:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Wickeddoll" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.evilcabal.org:

Well, that's sort of true, but the literal translation from the French is "leave us alone".

How many governments in recent memory have actually done that? None to my count. Some have been worse than others, but nobody's ever been "laissez faire".

Probably the closest we've come in modern times to true "laissez faire" is Hong Kong under John Cowperthwaite. No US president could ever be accused of being "laissez faire".

aarcuda69062 wrote in news:nonelson- snipped-for-privacy@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:

Government-built cars. Hmmm. Let me see...

Yugo Lada Dacia Trabant Zaporozhets FSO Moskvich

Don't those names just stir your blood and awaken fond memories of night cruises past the bright lights, loud music and pretty girls in front of the Kremlin? Va-va-voom, Tovarishch!

Are you sure it isn't the other way round?

Perce

6 to one.... half dozen to...... Whatever the truth is, there is no concern for the consumer just yet. What will it take I wonder. Has some influential think tank of close advisor's decided that like a Pearl Harbor incident would be good us, another crash like 29 would be good?

Probably not, why bother when screwing the citizens is going so well?

Better here, buy it, control it. Sell anything you want, like WMD's.

Good thing America was never involved in anything like *that*.

Have you read the Patriot Act? Do you know about Bush having wide latitude on declaring martial law?

Perhaps he envy's Bush.

Indeed.

Why pretend you don't know what I was referring to?

Yes, Bush has the latitude. The difference is Hugo Chavez has effectively exercised his latitude to instill martial law.

He hates Bush -- wait, that's just like you.

"F.H." wrote in news:wz55i.13826$qp5.3773@trnddc03:

I'm afraid that, quite honestly, I'm not following your connection. Can you elaborate for me? Not kidding here.

I'm *so* comforted. Far be it from the "Decider" to capitalize on powers he's not given under the Constitution. Or as he has referred to it "just a God Damned piece of paper."

The psychic is in. And priced right. ;)

Laissez faire is often used to describe Reaganomics supply side theory, "a rising tide lifts all boats," etc.,etc.. The evidence suggests otherwise. It should say *some* boats. ;)

As for "Venezuela always being so poor" *always* is a long time. Some people claim that offers of help in the form of loans have been part of the problem, that borrowing from the World Bank can turn out to be like borrowing from the Mafia. ;) And like with the Mafia, people can wind up dead. Try the New York Times bestseller, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, it might change your perspective a tad on poverty in some South American countries.

Thanks. You're right. Never ceases to amaze me.

You're fighting a losing argument. People don't want to believe that their own government is capable of corruption, especially Americans. We're the good guys, and propaganda is what they did in Nazi Germany. It can't happen here.

America may not be perfect but it is orders of magnitude better than the tropical gulag of Venezuela. Since Chavez has come into power, he has systematically decimated the country's economy and future while stockpiling short term political gains with favors and handouts to some. The standard of living, never that great, has been falling overall.

When Chavez's goons got control of PDVSA, the state oil company, they nearly have run the company into the ground as competent engineers were disposed of. Anyone who did not pledge total allegiance to Chavez was terminated, and I don't mean their job status. Land is being nationalized (read: taken away without compensation) from struggling but moderately successful farmers growing sugar cane and the like. The new "co-ops" collectively farming the land have largely yielded crop failures. The Wall St Journal had another article about how this is decimating the land, the environment, AND the economy in the last few weeks.

Gasoline is cheap in Venezuela, but it burns very dirty and pollution controls are non-existant. The nation will eventually pay a very stiff price in other ways for its cheap gas that encourages high consumption.

You may not like America's current President, but I can guarantee you he will not be in office in two years. Chavez will be in power for as long as he feels like, unless there is a successful coup against him.

And therefore above suspicion with regard to corruption? Propaganda?

As always, truth is in the eye of the beholder and his favorite messenger:

There have been a number of articles recently (e.g. Christian Science Monitor,[4] Andres Oppenheimer in the Miami Herald[5]) claiming that poverty has actually increased under President Chavez, based on government statistics. This is also wrong, because:

a) These data do not include the non-cash income of the poor -- including subsidized food and access to health care services. Since there have been enormous changes in these areas, any comparison would have to take these changes into account in order to accurately measure the change in living standards of the poor. With subsidized food now reaching 46 percent of the population, this one program alone could easily push millions of people over the official poverty line that is based on cash income only. Any comparison of poverty today with past years that does not include these new benefits to the poor is essentially meaningless.

State oil company PDVSA will control at least 60% of the projects, which have been ceded by ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP, Statoil and Total.

Mr Chavez told cheering workers that foreign oil companies had damaged Venezuela's national interests and that reclaiming them represented an historic victory.

Mr Chavez has also said he wants to pull Venezuela out of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Hmmm, Saddam switched to the Euro and wound up dead. Somebody just might try to *kill* Chavez. Again. ;)

Heh, we would *never* do anything like *that* but then there are more subtle ways. Like converting the Dept of Justice into an extension of the RNC. Did you watch any of the senate hearing today?

Got a pick for the Belmont Stakes? And is that Jeb I see standing in the wings?

He seems quite popular right now and the CIA ain't what it used to be down there but you never know. Perhaps a plane accident or........., South American leaders who refuse help from the World Bank or thumb their noses at America seem to be accident prone.

I won't comment on their profits. But, every so often, a spokesman for one oil company or another will be quoted on the news, explaining the reasons for the most recent round of price hikes, and some of the reasons are insulting to listen to. That's the problem for me.

I think the president could help by getting his comedy writers together and coming up with a speech which explains why it's good for "the economy" when gas prices continue to climb.

"F.H." wrote in news:iF75i.13858$qp5.6019@trnddc03:

Heres another term for you: "red herring".

You can give any old name you like to things, but just any old name is not always going to be accurate. Reagans' economic policies may be more accurately described as "less mecantilist" than some of the other presidents'. It was certainly not "laissez faire".

Another example of an inaccurate term affecting people's view of a subject: When California and the Canadian province of Ontario altered their regulatory framework for electricity, it was instantly dubbed "deregulation", even though the market remained heavily regulated in a slightly different manner than before. The term was inaccurately used, but you'd never have known that from what you read in the papers.

The indisputable fact is that people are never richer as when their governments leave them alone. The best things a government can do for its population are

1) to recognize and support private property rights, 2) to provide a fair and honest dispute resolution system, 3) to obey its own rules, 4) and to otherwise go away.

DUH! Who runs the Social Security system? Is that what you want to see happen the oil industry? LOL

mike

Nothing. Off you go then.