HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Spain demands payment for...

Wed May 2, 2012, 09:56 PM

Spain demands payment for Bolivia asset snatch

Source: AFP

Spain demanded fair payment Wednesday after Bolivia snatched Spanish firm Red Electrica's local grid, a second blow to the nation's foreign investments in Latin America.

Bolivian President Evo Morales's expropriation came just 15 days after Argentina's much larger nationalisation of oil giant Repsol's YPF subsidiary, which triggered an outcry in Madrid.

It sparked fears that other populist Latin American governments, especially those facing elections, could follow suit, and led to a warning from Europe that world investment may be affected.

Pressure grew on Madrid to take a tough stance to deter raids on other Spanish companies, which provide crucial support to the recession-bound economy.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/spain-electric-grid-shares-fall-bolivian-takeover-075234014.html

29 replies, 4283 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Spain demands payment for Bolivia asset snatch (Original post)
Zorro May 2012 OP
MNBrewer May 2012 #1
Warren Stupidity May 2012 #4
DetlefK May 2012 #7
Warren Stupidity May 2012 #8
4th law of robotics May 2012 #16
Comrade Grumpy May 2012 #2
Warren Stupidity May 2012 #3
jberryhill May 2012 #5
provis99 May 2012 #6
fasttense May 2012 #9
hack89 May 2012 #10
Warren Stupidity May 2012 #12
hack89 May 2012 #13
Warren Stupidity May 2012 #14
hack89 May 2012 #15
Warren Stupidity May 2012 #17
hack89 May 2012 #18
Ash_F May 2012 #19
hack89 May 2012 #21
Ash_F May 2012 #23
hack89 May 2012 #25
hack89 May 2012 #11
Ash_F May 2012 #20
hack89 May 2012 #22
Ash_F May 2012 #24
hack89 May 2012 #26
rayofreason May 2012 #29
may3rd May 2012 #27
jeanmarc May 2012 #28

Response to Zorro (Original post)

Wed May 2, 2012, 09:59 PM

1. Good for Bolivia!

Investments are RISKS. There is no reason that investors deserve a return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #1)

Wed May 2, 2012, 10:19 PM

4. The "snatching" is with compensation. The headline is bullshit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #4)

Thu May 3, 2012, 06:24 AM

7. What's a "guarantee" from a thief worth?

Quote from article:
"What the Bolivian government guaranteed is that it will compensate the firm for the costs invested in the electrical grid," De Guindos said on the sidelines of a finance meeting in Brussels.

Costs invested in the electrical grid? What's covered by this?
The cables?
The administrative set-up and the control system?
Installations, real estate, machines, devices, tools, spare-parts?
The costs, brain-power and experience that got the whole system running?




I can't believe the comments I'm reading here.
It's apparently okay to steal your laptop, as long as I compensate you for the cost of the electronics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #7)

Thu May 3, 2012, 06:35 AM

8. "thief"? It is a legal act.

 

But of course what is mostly left out of the discussion is the back story. Bolivia was one of several neoliberal experiments in privatization in the 90s. The public sector services, including the electric power infrastructure, we're carved up and sold off under IMF direction. This is an undoing of a past injustice. You can complain about the compensated relationalization of Bolivia's resources and basic infrastructure, and call it theft, but we know who the thieves are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #8)

Thu May 3, 2012, 05:32 PM

16. Legal according to Boliva

 

countries generally decide that whatever they're doing is just fine.

If this were being done by another nation to a Bolivian company I imagine they'd be screaming about it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Wed May 2, 2012, 10:13 PM

2. This was posted yesterday, though not with the cool pro-international bourgeoisie spin.

 

Oh, dear, those populist Latin Americans are taking their assets back! Let's threaten them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Wed May 2, 2012, 10:16 PM

3. People of America demand compensation for 500 years of exploitation.

 

Oh wait, never mind about the shit in Bolivia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Wed May 2, 2012, 10:24 PM

5. Is paying for snatch legal in Spain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Wed May 2, 2012, 10:55 PM

6. Bolivia to conquistador imperialists: Drop Dead!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Thu May 3, 2012, 07:14 AM

9. Oh this is such horse hockey

 

What about our eminent domain laws? They are very similar to what Bolivia did only in our country they steal from the little guy and give it away to corporations and the uber rich. How about when the FED nationalizes corrupted banks that are going bankrupt? Is that any different?

Do you really believe that Communist China wont do the exact same thing with all those American factories in their county if given a reason? Stupid corporations think they have a blanket agreement with corrupt governments to steal from We The People. And sometimes We The People get justice, but not often.

Good on Bolivia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #9)

Thu May 3, 2012, 07:38 AM

10. So you can point out in America where any government at any level

took control of a business and continued to operate that business?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #10)

Thu May 3, 2012, 03:42 PM

12. United States Railroad Administration

 

1917-1920.

And:
1862: The Legal Tender Act nationalized the monetary system under fiat currency.
1863: The National Bank Act nationalized the banking system and further monopolized the money supply.
1939: Organization of the Tennessee Valley Authority entailed the nationalization of the facilities of the former Tennessee Electric Power Company.
1971: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a government-owned corporation created in 1971 for the express purpose of relieving American railroads of their legal obligation to provide inter-city passenger rail service. The (primarily) freight railroads had petitioned to abandon passenger service repeatedly in the decades leading up to Amtrak's formation.
1976: The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), another government corporation, was created to take over the operations of six bankrupt rail lines operating primarily in the Northeast; Conrail was privatized in 1987. Initial plans for Conrail would have made it a truly nationalized system like that during World War I, but an alternate proposal by the Association of American Railroads won out.
1980s: Resolution Trust Corporation seized control of hundreds of failed Savings & Loans.
2001: In response to the September 11 attacks, the then-private airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration.
2008: Some economists consider the U.S. government's takeover of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal National Mortgage Association to have been nationalization (or renationalization).[28][29] The conservatorship model used with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is looser and more temporary than nationalization.[30]
2009: Some economists consider the U.S. government's actions with regards to Citigroup to have been a partial nationalization.[31] Proposal was made that banks like Citigroup be brought under a conservatorship model similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that some of their "good assets" be dropped into newly created "good bank" subsidiaries (presumably under new management), and the remaining "bad assets" be left to be managed under the supervision of a conservatorship structure.[30] The U.S. government's actions with regard to General Motors in replacing the CEO with a government approved CEO is likewise being considered as nationalization.[32][33] On June 1, 2009, General Motors filed for bankruptcy, with the United States investing up to $50 billion and taking 60% ownership in the company. President Obama stated that the nationalization was temporary, saying, "We are acting as reluctant shareholders because that is the only way to help GM succeed"[34]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #12)

Thu May 3, 2012, 04:05 PM

13. A three year, war emergency act. OK

1. the first two have nothing to do with the government running commercial banks. It involves the establishment of the national banking system.

2. Amtrak came about because of the imminent collapse of passenger train service. The government did not seize a commercially viable company. Much of its acquisitions came through the bankruptcy of privately owned companies.

3. CONRAIL also involved the government buying the assets of bankrupt private companies. It was turned over to private investors 11 years later. Like Amtrak, it only came about due to the imminent collapse freight train service.

4. Resolution Trust Corporation did not run savings and loans. It was a mechanism to sell the assets of failed and insolvent savings and loans.

5. The TSA did not nationalize any private security companies.

Of the rest, I will give you the TVA even though it is very localized and never replicated elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Thu May 3, 2012, 05:09 PM

14. keep spinning.

 

You asked. You got the answer: many times. Now you are often working definitional arguments to avoid the answer.

The national banking system abolished (via nationalization) private currencies. Rather huge.

In both AMTRAK and CONRAIL your complaint is that they were in financial trouble. So what?

RTC took over - nationalized - essentially the entire S&L industry.

The airport security industry was private until 2001. The TSA nationalized the industry, a fact that all the neolib market fundies now regret and want to undo. Your argument would be better with the irrelevant "but it was wartime" that you used for the US Rail case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #14)

Thu May 3, 2012, 05:14 PM

15. The fundamental difference

Is that the US did not reneg on an agreement with a commercial entity to seize a viable commercial enterprise.

Bolivia will pay a high price this. That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Thu May 3, 2012, 10:14 PM

17. You asked a specific question and you got your answer.

 

"So you can point out in America where any government at any level took control of a business and continued to operate that business?".

The answer was given. "Yes, Many times." Next time try google first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #17)

Fri May 4, 2012, 06:00 AM

18. If you can't see how your examples have anything to do with what happened in Bolivia

then there is not much I can do.

Lets remember what the thread is about.

Next time I will try to keep things black and white for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Fri May 4, 2012, 06:28 AM

19. LOL hack89 treads water...

...as they struggle to placate the bad guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #19)

Fri May 4, 2012, 06:53 AM

21. Who are the bad guys?

Does Spain expecting a government to not break contracts make them the bad guys?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Fri May 4, 2012, 07:25 AM

23. Sucking away a countries financial resources in one-sided deals...

brought about through undemocratic corruption and violence makes someone the badguy. Yes, Spain are the bad guys.

PS - How's that for black and white?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #23)

Fri May 4, 2012, 07:59 AM

25. Can you show how much money Bolivia lost on the deal?

I see the emotion - how about some facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Thu May 3, 2012, 07:39 AM

11. There goes Bolivia's foreign investments. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Fri May 4, 2012, 06:30 AM

20. Oh no! How will they survive without daddy Europe?

Bolivia shouldn't give Spain a red cent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #20)

Fri May 4, 2012, 06:55 AM

22. Look to Venezula's oil industry for your answer.

steady decline in production as their infrastructure decays because they do not have access to foreign capital or expertise.

Bolivia needs foreign investment - they are not a rich country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Fri May 4, 2012, 07:27 AM

24. Venezula will figure it out.

as will Bolivia. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #24)

Fri May 4, 2012, 08:02 AM

26. Doubtful

when you consider Venezuela is becoming an economic basket case. You can't depend on a global economy on one hand and poke your global trading partners in the eye on the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #24)

Fri May 4, 2012, 08:25 AM

29. Would you include...

...stock in any company that invests in Bolivia in your retirement account? That would make you the "bad guy", and there is a chance that the Bolivian government would decide that, since you are the "bad guy", they can seize the investment without compensation. That would negatively affect your stock and reduce the amount of money you have for retirement.

Let me assume that you are a rational person. Under those circumstances you would not want any of your retirement funds invested in Bolivia. You would want them invested in places where your property is secure. I, for one, would not invest in Bolivia. Nor would I buy Greek bonds. Apple computer - good, safe buy. And doing well too.

If you are a responsible fund manager, say for a union pension fund, you would definitely not invest money in a country where the property is not secure. Nationalization of assets might mean that union members would not be able to get their pension payments, a very bad outcome indeed. In fact, I would bet that the there are many Spanish workers whose pension plans had a stake in this investment. After all, how do you think retirement works? You save, and invest those savings and how they grow so that when you retire you can use the investment account to pay for your expenses.

Unless Bolivia comes to a mutually agreeable compensation for the nationalization of this property, those Spanish people who property is being seized will be financially damaged and everyone else in the world will think twice before investing in Bolivia.

Bolivia is a poor country that needs investment to develop its infrastructure. No one is forced to lend them money. Investors do that because they get something out of it. Now Bolivia will have to offer investors more in order to get them to risk their money.

Some people, of course, take the position that that is just exploitation. Fine. Bolivia doesn't have to borrow money from anyone and then it won't be exploited. It looks like it is moving in a direction that will produce that outcome. Good luck with that. And speaking of good luck, here is a quote from Robert Heinlein, the science fiction author:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri May 4, 2012, 08:18 AM

27. Spain is arguing the fair price value

 

They have to save face with the EU banktards

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Original post)

Fri May 4, 2012, 08:20 AM

28. You don't 'really' own anything when you deal internationally

You're just renting it with the idea that you own it. A gov't can snatch up your assets any day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread