Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

That's special pleading. You've just created rules for legitimacy that automatically precludes anything that isn't democracy. It's circular.

The truth is that neither democracy or dictatorship has any good system for which to evaluate the merits of policies. A democracies only perk is that there's an inbuilt mechanic for which to get rid of weak leaders. Which is a pretty awesome and kick-ass mechanic. But democracy isn't a magic bullet that fixes everything.

It's a fundamental difference between concepts.

How does one conclude any decision made by a dictator is legitimate? How could that be possible?

I am not sure if legitimate is the right word, but how beneficial is such a decision to the people. China has a general election every five years in which the 8 legal (pro government) small opposition parties are allowed to stand. However it has made great strides in improving the economy, raised living and education standards and become a world leader in manufacture.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Here, the US replaced a democratically elected government with an oppressive dictatorship, and the series of events stemming from this leads to today.

What led to the dictatorships in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, ect. There wasn't any Western meddling there that led to a ruling clique of same family kings and sheiks.

The US doesn't care a rat's behind (as Judge Judy says on TV) what kind of governments these are as long as the oil flows and they are getting on so to speak. The rules of regime change apply to Syria, Iraq and Libya but not to Saudi Arabia. In fact the Saudi Royal family even named the country after its own name.

As we are aware Saudi Arabia has just executed a Shiite cleric. America said nothing. The West has armed Saudi Arabia with hundreds of war planes tanks and destroyers. Not one has been used to help restore some kind of order in the region.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's special pleading. You've just created rules for legitimacy that automatically precludes anything that isn't democracy. It's circular.

The truth is that neither democracy or dictatorship has any good system for which to evaluate the merits of policies. A democracies only perk is that there's an inbuilt mechanic for which to get rid of weak leaders. Which is a pretty awesome and kick-ass mechanic. But democracy isn't a magic bullet that fixes everything.

It's a fundamental difference between concepts.

How does one conclude any decision made by a dictator is legitimate? How could that be possible?

It depends entirely on how you evaluate legitimacy. You do agree that it's a fluid concept?

I could decide that a legitimate decision is one made by a member of the royal house of Sweden in power. Any decision that isn't isn't. See how easy that was?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Only a socialist would say that theft is not theft.

Only an idiot would call paying people for their equipment "theft".

Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)

 

[4321lynx]

Only an idiot would call paying people for their equipment "theft".

Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)

Well now. In the 1970's Barrons Magazine, not a socialist publication as you may know, had a long article showing that in manufacturing and mining overseas investment, the costs of start up including the construction of necessary infrastructure , bribery, etc were covered in some 3 to 4 years. After that the profits were just that, pure profit. Western companies with their knowhow and US dollars for the necessary bribes of ignorant but greedy and locally powerful men took every advantage they could all over the poverty-ridden parts of the world. It was stealing on a monumental scale, combined with a scarecely hidden contempt for those who were being so easily robbed.
It created an explosive mixture in various parts of the world, so numerous and varied that the CIA could not prevent things getting out of hand in various places, even with using the camouflage of struggling against the powers of darkness ie Communism. We are the inheritors of the results of past policies of investment always involving paying far,far below value for the goods received, policies that were "normal business methods", amounting in fact to robbery of the powerless, ignorant, primitive (aka underdeveloped) countries.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Only an idiot would call paying people for their equipment "theft".

Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)

If the state decided private ownership of something is wrong then any price is a bargain for the prior owners. So I'm not sure what your argument is? Again... I reject natural rights. In a world where some people are richer than others from birth it's a bit silly to split hairs on the relative fairness of markets.

Also, the value of an extremely expensive commodity or resource is very hard to measure. Regardless of the price most people are locked out from ever being able to afford it. A market where some players have more money than others is inherently unfair. Especially a market where most people have no way of ever competing. So I can't see how you have any foot to stand on.

 

[untermensche]

It's a fundamental difference between concepts.

How does one conclude any decision made by a dictator is legitimate? How could that be possible?

It depends entirely on how you evaluate legitimacy. You do agree that it's a fluid concept?

I could decide that a legitimate decision is one made by a member of the royal house of Sweden in power. Any decision that isn't isn't. See how easy that was?

Legitimacy is about where power comes from.

An elected representative gets power from the people, from the electorate.

A dictator doesn't get any power from the people. They just take it.

Wielding power over people that is taken and not given is illegitimate. Nobody has that right.

 

[untermensche]

Only an idiot would call paying people for their equipment "theft".

Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)

You just invent things whole. It is the argument of a child.

Nationalization means paying the fair market value for equipment.

And drilling holes is the cost of doing business. Nobody gets paid for drilling dry holes.

It is amazing the contortions some go to to justify US and British malfeasance.

 

[arkirk]

Does anybody find it amazing that this off the wall thread hasn't died yet? Europe is not submitting voluntarily and with every passing week it is a little less voluntary. We have been observing what amounts to a long and winding struggle over petroleum resources and I doubt this struggle will continue in countries that blaze the trail out of the petroleum struggle. Europe's problem is not Islam. It is a struggle to keep things as they were in the heyday of ME oil fever and African mineral and oil exploitation (colonization and mandate operations are no more). Europe's and America's problem is people who have been driven out of their homelands by our bombs and other imported weapons. These lands have been suppressed by threat of military action. Iraq and Afghanistan was the war card being played by the most powerful military nation in the world. This was an abject failure...and a lesson to the primative peoples in these regions. That their backward ideas are no obstacle to their resistance of western domination. Our leaders are still trying to bully people who will not bully and do not seem apt to be eliminated from the struggle. So what do you do when you have stalemate? Deescalate. I believe if we softened our approaches and promised to never turn our own power over to people like Dubbiya and Cheny and our pentagon, we could begin to see a break in the violence. Our leaders are all playing macho. Does nobody see this?
Even Japan's Abe is playing tough guy with the Chinese. This sort of mutual threat scenario always comes to stalemate or worse.....

 

[angelo]

Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)

If the state decided private ownership of something is wrong then any price is a bargain for the prior owners. So I'm not sure what your argument is? Again... I reject natural rights. In a world where some people are richer than others from birth it's a bit silly to split hairs on the relative fairness of markets.

Also, the value of an extremely expensive commodity or resource is very hard to measure. Regardless of the price most people are locked out from ever being able to afford it. A market where some players have more money than others is inherently unfair. Especially a market where most people have no way of ever competing. So I can't see how you have any foot to stand on.

But that's the only way to ensure prosperity in a capitalist society. Enterprise has to be encouraged, not discouraged!

 

[angelo]

Does anybody find it amazing that this off the wall thread hasn't died yet? Europe is not submitting voluntarily and with every passing week it is a little less voluntary. We have been observing what amounts to a long and winding struggle over petroleum resources and I doubt this struggle will continue in countries that blaze the trail out of the petroleum struggle. Europe's problem is not Islam. It is a struggle to keep things as they were in the heyday of ME oil fever and African mineral and oil exploitation (colonization and mandate operations are no more). Europe's and America's problem is people who have been driven out of their homelands by our bombs and other imported weapons. These lands have been suppressed by threat of military action. Iraq and Afghanistan was the war card being played by the most powerful military nation in the world. This was an abject failure...and a lesson to the primative peoples in these regions. That their backward ideas are no obstacle to their resistance of western domination. Our leaders are still trying to bully people who will not bully and do not seem apt to be eliminated from the struggle. So what do you do when you have stalemate? Deescalate. I believe if we softened our approaches and promised to never turn our own power over to people like Dubbiya and Cheny and our pentagon, we could begin to see a break in the violence. Our leaders are all playing macho. Does nobody see this?
Even Japan's Abe is playing tough guy with the Chinese. This sort of mutual threat scenario always comes to stalemate or worse.....

Ah yes, but for some time now there is the UN who has been trying to distribute the wealth from those who have it to those who are too lazy to make their own, or have corrupt leaders, or really are unfortunate and backward.
The latest ploy to redistribute is climate change. The first world has to hand over 100 billion per year to the third world because of some UN invented furphy that's got a huge hole that the Titanic fits through without touching the sides.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)

Well now. In the 1970's Barrons Magazine, not a socialist publication as you may know, had a long article showing that in manufacturing and mining overseas investment, the costs of start up including the construction of necessary infrastructure , bribery, etc were covered in some 3 to 4 years. After that the profits were just that, pure profit. Western companies with their knowhow and US dollars for the necessary bribes of ignorant but greedy and locally powerful men took every advantage they could all over the poverty-ridden parts of the world. It was stealing on a monumental scale, combined with a scarecely hidden contempt for those who were being so easily robbed.
It created an explosive mixture in various parts of the world, so numerous and varied that the CIA could not prevent things getting out of hand in various places, even with using the camouflage of struggling against the powers of darkness ie Communism. We are the inheritors of the results of past policies of investment always involving paying far,far below value for the goods received, policies that were "normal business methods", amounting in fact to robbery of the powerless, ignorant, primitive (aka underdeveloped) countries.

Back then I would expect manufacturing to be cheap--third world manufacturing at that time was high labor, low skill, low equipment jobs. Of course they recouped the investment fairly quickly.

Lumping basically zero-risk manufacturing with fairly high risk mining/drilling isn't going to give good data.

Furthermore, you're missing that there usually was competition for the rights and thus the company would have to pay market price. That might have been in the form of bribes to the dictators rather than payments to the government but it would still have to be paid.

What has happened with oil is that the price shot up and what had been a reasonable deal when it was signed was no longer so reasonable.

- - - Updated - - -

Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)

If the state decided private ownership of something is wrong then any price is a bargain for the prior owners. So I'm not sure what your argument is? Again... I reject natural rights. In a world where some people are richer than others from birth it's a bit silly to split hairs on the relative fairness of markets.

Also, the value of an extremely expensive commodity or resource is very hard to measure. Regardless of the price most people are locked out from ever being able to afford it. A market where some players have more money than others is inherently unfair. Especially a market where most people have no way of ever competing. So I can't see how you have any foot to stand on.

Government seizure of private property should be at replacement cost.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)

You just invent things whole. It is the argument of a child.

Nationalization means paying the fair market value for equipment.

The fair market value of your house is $100. Ready to sell?

And drilling holes is the cost of doing business. Nobody gets paid for drilling dry holes.

But they are part of the replacement cost of the wells.

It is amazing the contortions some go to to justify US and British malfeasance.

It's amazing the contortions some go to to justify theft.

 

[bilby]

Only an idiot would call paying people for their equipment "theft".

Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)

And Privatisation always involves selling for far below the true value of what is sold.

When the Thatcher government privatised British Gas, British Telecom, British Steel, etc., etc., they took my share (as a British Citizen), and the shares of all the rest of the citizens of Britain, and on our behalf sold them. The new owners were delighted to see that as soon as the shares floated on the stock market, they were valued at far above the price they paid for them - so effectively my share of these entities was sold to the Conservative Government's mates (and the MPs themselves) at a massive discount. The rich robbed the poor, very effectively, and in a way that was transparently obvious. A privatisation where the new shares are not expected to rise in price on the first day of trading is considered a failure; but only such a 'failed' float is not detrimental to the citizenry. If you think governments are intended to look after the interests of the citizens, then you should oppose all but the most 'disastrous' privatisations.

Indeed, if a nationalised industry is able to be privatised at all, then it is a sign that it would be better for the government to keep its shareholding than to sell it. If someone is willing to buy, then the government is selling too cheap.

Given a choice between a government that steals to give to the rich, and a government that steals to give to the poor, I know which I prefer.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It depends entirely on how you evaluate legitimacy. You do agree that it's a fluid concept?

I could decide that a legitimate decision is one made by a member of the royal house of Sweden in power. Any decision that isn't isn't. See how easy that was?

Legitimacy is about where power comes from.

An elected representative gets power from the people, from the electorate.

A dictator doesn't get any power from the people. They just take it.

Wielding power over people that is taken and not given is illegitimate. Nobody has that right.

I think you've just misunderstood the word. I think what you're trying to say is that "in your opinion only an elected representative truly can represent the people".

It's still only your opinion. It's also my opinion. But I understand and accept that it's only an opinion

 

[angelo]

Nationalization always involves paying far below the true value of what's taken. Even if they pay market value of what they actually seize that doesn't count the other costs. (For example, the cost of dry holes that were drilled.)

And Privatisation always involves selling for far below the true value of what is sold.

When the Thatcher government privatised British Gas, British Telecom, British Steel, etc., etc., they took my share (as a British Citizen), and the shares of all the rest of the citizens of Britain, and on our behalf sold them. The new owners were delighted to see that as soon as the shares floated on the stock market, they were valued at far above the price they paid for them - so effectively my share of these entities was sold to the Conservative Government's mates (and the MPs themselves) at a massive discount. The rich robbed the poor, very effectively, and in a way that was transparently obvious. A privatisation where the new shares are not expected to rise in price on the first day of trading is considered a failure; but only such a 'failed' float is not detrimental to the citizenry. If you think governments are intended to look after the interests of the citizens, then you should oppose all but the most 'disastrous' privatisations.

Indeed, if a nationalised industry is able to be privatised at all, then it is a sign that it would be better for the government to keep its shareholding than to sell it. If someone is willing to buy, then the government is selling too cheap.

Given a choice between a government that steals to give to the rich, and a government that steals to give to the poor, I know which I prefer.

In most cases privatisation is used to balance the books. Labour as well as the conservatives are as guilty as one another in that regard, with little thought about losing a steady income stream from the dividends privatised companies such as the Commonwealth Bank, or Telstra paid into government coffers.
What will they do when there's nothing left to privatise? Where will they get their income from? Why, the taxpayer of course!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Government seizure of private property should be at replacement cost.

It's impossible to calculate a fair price for something like this. So having this demand is simply a way to always condemn nationalisations. Whatever price is paid it'll always be too low. So nice try.

In this specific case Iran's contention was that BP had bribed and strong armed their way into this cut throat deal with Iran. Which I think is a pretty uncontroversial claim. If Iran didn't enter into this on a free market Mossadegh gathered Iran shouldn't feel bound by the contract. So he broke it and paid BP what he thought was a fair price. Iran was then a democracy and Mossadegh was a democratically elected leader. It was Mossadegh's job as representative of the Iranian executive branch to uphold the will of the Iranian people to the best of his ability. Which I think he did. I'm sorry if it hurt a couple of capitalists feelings.

It doesn't help your case that as leaders go Mossadegh's track record is among the better ones. Very little skeletons in that guy's closet. Politicians tend to be scumbags. Not this one. A guy with a heart of gold and impeccable ethics. Which cannot be said about the guy CIA replaced him with.

 

[angelo]

In the Chavez mold of guy who nationalised the multinationals and sent the nation broke?

 

[Jayjay]

In the Chavez mold of guy who nationalised the multinationals and sent the nation broke?

It's not the nationalization that sent the nation broke, it was mismanagement and overall batshit crazy economic policies.

But, that goes to show that nationalizaton (as well as privatization) can be handled in different ways. Speaking about Iran, Mossadegh's plans to do so were never executed so it's entirely hypothetical how that would have played out.

 

[angelo]

Socialism has been proven not to work anywhere. But every now and then a new messiah comes along to have another go and again fails miserably.