Venezuela shuts down McDonald's

Originally posted by no1marauder
So did they. This wasn't the first time they had problems with the tax authorities. So they were shut down for two days; a bar in Albany that had been in existence for 150 years was recently shut down PERMANENTLY because they served minors. Bottom line; if you don't obey the rules, sanctions are imposed.

As to your second paragraph, your st ...[text shortened]... nal and I think you know it. Do you consider the UK "authoritarian" because it runs the BBC?

They've alwasy owned the BBC as far as I know. That's a bit different than assuming somone else's property.

Originally posted by MrHand
They've alwasy owned the BBC as far as I know. That's a bit different than assuming somone else's property.

Expropriation of property is allowable under international law so long as there is just compensation. This is a principal supported by the US Constitution as well. I suppose you've never heard of "eminent domain"?

Really the nonsense written in this forum is beyond belief.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Expropriation of property is allowable under international law so long as there is just compensation. This is a principal supported by the US Constitution as well. I suppose you've never heard of "eminent domain"?

Really the nonsense written in this forum is beyond belief.

So you think that Venezuela has fairly compensated the oil companies?

My point is, legal or not, Chavez did so in an authoritarian way...which was the point of contention that you brought up. If you feel that Venezuela is being fair with McDonald's, so be it. Your insults are uncalled for.

Originally posted by Redmike
Really? Shouldn't be too difficult to repeat it then.

Listen pal, don't be so lazy, go there and have a look yourself

Originally posted by MrHand
So you think that Venezuela has fairly compensated the oil companies?

My point is, legal or not, Chavez did so in an authoritarian way...which was the point of contention that you brought up. If you feel that Venezuela is being fair with McDonald's, so be it. Your insults are uncalled for.

that's how commies are, when they're proved wrong, they get aggressive.

Originally posted by generalissimo
that's how commies are, when they're proved wrong, they get aggressive.

He's liberal but doesn't strike me as a communist.

DSR is as nasty as I've seen around here and he's a bonafide patriot.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Listen pal, don't be so lazy, go there and have a look yourself

I did, there was nothing.

Originally posted by MrHand
So you think that Venezuela has fairly compensated the oil companies?

My point is, legal or not, Chavez did so in an authoritarian way...which was the point of contention that you brought up. If you feel that Venezuela is being fair with McDonald's, so be it. Your insults are uncalled for.

Yes they did IMO. I suppose you are unaware that some companies accepted $1.8 billion in compensation based on the book value of the assets seized. Several others are contesting the amount they were compensated using legal international arbitration means set up by the World Bank. http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20080221-120245/Venezuela-pays-oil-companies-18B-for-assets

So where's the "authoritarian" part? The people of Venezuela decided that they supported the nationalization of their most important resources and voted for someone who agreed with that principle. He proceeded to do what the people wanted and did so in a legally accepted manner. Your characterization of this democracy in action as "authoritarian" is nonsensical propaganda.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes they did IMO. I suppose you are unaware that some companies accepted $1.8 billion in compensation based on the book value of the assets seized. Several others are contesting the amount they were compensated using legal international arbitration means set up by the World Bank. http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20080221-120245/Venezu ...[text shortened]... characterization of this democracy in action as "authoritarian" is nonsensical propaganda.

I'm aware of that compensation and it strikes me as a very low figure. In fairness to Venezuela, surely they did not negotiate their original contracts with the oil companies well enough.

You are correct it than it was legal. However, the Oil Companies forced to do this against their will and the money they received was essentially cutting losses rather than a fair compensation.

Russia recently did something similar to Shell Oil on their eastern coast.

Legal, yes. Strong armed? yes.

Originally posted by MrHand
I'm aware of that compensation and it strikes me as a very low figure. In fairness to Venezuela, surely they did not negotiate their original contracts with the oil companies well enough.

You are correct it than it was legal. However, the Oil Companies forced to do this against their will and the money they received was essentially cutting losses rather ...[text shortened]... did something similar to Shell Oil on their eastern coast.

Legal, yes. Strong armed? yes.

Every company involved has accepted the compensation given by the Venezuelan government as "fair" except ExxonMobil. Their case is currently before the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, a division of the World Bank. Your expert opinion regarding the value of oil fields in Venezuela is noted, though it does not seem to be shared by the parties involved. "Book value" of an asset seems eminently fair to me; it's the dollar value a business places on an asset in its balance sheets and other financial statements.

If by "strong armed" you mean the companies would have preferred that the elected leaders of Venezuela not follow the will of their people, than that's true enough. I don't consider it being "strong armed" when the government takes taxes directly out of my paycheck though I'd prefer they didn't. Perhaps you do but if so, I think you are being naive and irrational.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Every company involved has accepted the compensation given by the Venezuelan government as "fair" except ExxonMobil. Their case is currently before the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, a division of the World Bank. Your expert opinion regarding the value of oil fields in Venezuela is noted, though it does not seem to be shared ...[text shortened]... they didn't. Perhaps you do but if so, I think you are being naive and irrational.

I will try to state it as simply as possible. This government gave the oil companies one option -- an option that they did not want.

I think you are being naive if you think that governments don't exert pressure on companies to express a point. Russia has done this repeatedly in (re-)nationalizing their resources. The US does this with more subtle ways via tariffs and subsidies to US businesses.

This is the way life is.

Originally posted by MrHand
I will try to state it as simply as possible. This government gave the oil companies one option -- an option that they did not want.

I think you are being naive if you think that governments don't exert pressure on companies to express a point. Russia has done this repeatedly in (re-)nationalizing their resources. The US does this with more subtle ways via tariffs and subsidies to US businesses.

This is the way life is.

Actually they had at least two options which you would know if you bothered to actually read my posts. Most negotiated with the Venezuelan government and got what both sides considered was fair compensation (again $1.8 billion which ain't chickenfeed). One (ExxonMobil) was dissatisfied with the results of said negotiations and took the case to binding international arbitration.

It's tough titty that the foreign oil companies "did not want" for their interests to be nationalized; again I don't want to have taxes deducted from my paycheck, but that's what the elected representatives of the people in my country have decided is desirable public policy. So long as the inherent rights of the individuals aren't violated, a sovereign government has a lot of latitude in making policy. No rights were violated here, so that's not "authoritarian" unless you are using the word based on your own peculiar definition rather than the standard one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually they had at least two options which you would know if you bothered to actually read my posts. Most negotiated with the Venezuelan government and got what both sides considered was fair compensation (again $1.8 billion which ain't chickenfeed). One (ExxonMobil) was dissatisfied with the results of said negotiations and took the case to binding in are using the word based on your own peculiar definition rather than the standard one.

I have read your posts and I am aware of the options that they had. I will be more precise, they were given two options, neither of which were desired by the companies.

Fine, the administration is not truly authoritarian. However, they did force the oil companies to do something that they did not want to do. They were compensated reasonably. But they were FORCED to do it.

I'm very aware that things happen in life that we must live with. My whole point is that this government is not afraid to throw its weight around.

My supposition is that this was a warning to McDonald's and also a politcal ploy by Chavez for some PR with his people.

This is the same guy that is suspected of having given money to FARC.

Originally posted by MrHand
I have read your posts and I am aware of the options that they had. I will be more precise, they were given two options, neither of which were desired by the companies.

Fine, the administration is not truly authoritarian. However, they did force the oil companies to do something that they did not want to do. They were compensated reasonably. But they ...[text shortened]... e PR with his people.

This is the same guy that is suspected of having given money to FARC.

All governments use their coercive powers; there'd be little reason for government if they didn't. All of us are forced to do things we'd rather not (like pay taxes) for what is perceived by the majority to be the greater good. Again so long as our fundamental, natural rights aren't violated you can only argue that a policy is unwise, not that it is "authoritarian".

I seriously doubt Chavez was involved in such a minor, ministerial matter. I suspect it's a far bigger deal in the Western press than it is in Venezuela; the "restaurants" were closed for 48 hours for cripes sake. This is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Chavez is blamed for many things, mainly because he opposes the domination of his country by foreign economic interests who have a lot of influence over the Western press. Some of his policies seem excessive. This isn't one of them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Chavez is blamed for many things, mainly because he opposes the domination of his country by foreign economic interests who have a lot of influence over the Western press. Some of his policies seem excessive. This isn't one of them.

As I understand it, Chavez is on "political ground" that is beginning to become unstable. Consequently, I would not be surprised at all if he was involved in such a thing. Minor in dollars and sense and true importance. But easily a good PR stunt for him to show him fighting the capitalists.