 |
| |
|
|
Saras
|
 |
Vilnius, Lithuania
Apr 1999
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Yes, I have. First, I am not quite sure that Americans don't keep certain assets as strategic and unsellable, that they don't somehow control foreign purchases of their assets. |
Well well. You're NOT SURE. Ergo, they DO keep certain assets unsellable. 
Seriously, if RosOboronExport wanted (assuming they had the billions of dollars) to buy Lockheed I think there would be som problems 
quote:
You just bought into their propaganda, naive Lithuanian. |
quote:
Second, given the enormous number of their assets, any one of them can hardly be considered strategic. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that a rival, non-Western entity will ever be able to buy out an essential chunk to make it strategic. In Russia, such a giant oil company as Yukos is responsible for up to 10% revenues of the federal budget. You see the difference? Can we entrust American companies, which were eager to buy Yukos, with the assets providing such a huge chunk of the budget. I am afraid not. |
Why not? Western corporates usually are more diligent tax payers than you regular Ivan Oligarchovich, they reinvest more into the business and they treat their employees better.
quote:
Russia, as a country that can solely rely in itself for survival in a hostile environment (unlike e.g. Lithuania, which lives truly in 'greenhouse' conditions) |
What 'greenhouse conditions'?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
 |
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saras
Well well. You're NOT SURE. Ergo, they DO keep certain assets unsellable.
Seriously, if RosOboronExport wanted (assuming they had the billions of dollars) to buy Lockheed I think there would be som problems
|
So the notion of a strategic asset is not alien to Americans, as expected. What do you think, if Rosneft had the bucks to buy Exxon and wanted to, would it be allowed to? I have some doubts.
quote:
|
Perhaps I shouldn't have said this, sorry. At least, not on that occasion.
quote:
Why not? Western corporates usually are more diligent tax payers than you regular Ivan Oligarchovich, they reinvest more into the business and they treat their employees better.
|
It would be more difficult to deal with them in the times of crisis. Besides, they are less likely to reinvest inside the country. In addition, it is the sacrosanct natural resourses we are talking about after all.
quote:
What 'greenhouse conditions'? |
In other words, just a regime of maximum favoritism from the West in all possible respects.
quote:
You're even worse that those idiots that were against liberalisation of land sales to non-residents of Lithuania. Omfg, teh Russians will buy all of Lithuania and ENSLAVE US AGAIN!
|
Lithuania already got its cushy place in the West. It has nothing to fear. So those people are really idiots. Russia is a different story, as I have already explained.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
|
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Poland was NOT forgiven communism-era debts.
|
Poland was forgiven a huge chunk of debt. If it was not communist-era one, then what was it?
quote:
I thin Russia did receive economic help.
|
Even if it is possible to say that Russia received any, it is still uncomparable to what Poland received. In addition to help, Russia also receieved a lot of damage.
quote:
What do you mean by "enormous pressure and tightening a new iron curtain around Russia"? |
Expanding NATO, EU, agression against Yugoslavia, new visa barriers, trampling on Russia's vital interests in the former USSR, ignoring human right violations against Russians in Latvia and Estonia, strenuous vilification campaign in the press, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Poland was forgiven a huge chunk of debt. If it was not communist-era one, then what was it?
|
Poland was forgiven part of the debt, lots remain. We'll be repaying the debt for decades to come.
I doubt Russia was not forgiven any part of its debt.
quote:
Even if it is possible to say that Russia received any, it is still uncomparable to what Poland received.
|
I don't recall we received any 
quote:
In addition to help, Russia also receieved a lot of damage.
|
Like what?
quote:
Expanding NATO, EU
[quote]
And that's harming Russia?
Of course eastern Europe wants to be in NATO because it fears Russia. But Russia only strenghtens that fear. Because why did it object NATO enlargement if it didn't think the protection of Poland, Lithuania etc is not what it wants?
[quote]
agression against Yugoslavia
|
It's not "agression". Have Serbia not persecuted Albanians in Kosovo, there'd be no affair at all.
How was it directed against Russia?
quote:
, new visa barriers,
|
These are not new. EU enlarged and so, the old rules are applied to the new boarder. It's hardly directed against Russia. Russia gets special treatement, in fact.
quote:
trampling on Russia's vital interests in the former USSR,
|
You'd have to specify. But a note: Russia is not the only country that has interests in this region and there are no reasons why its interests should be protected more than anyone else's. It's a free game.
quote:
ignoring human right violations against Russians in Latvia and Estonia
|
I thin EU is doing something about it. And as far as I remember, Russians could get citizenship as long as they learned the local language and info about the state.
quote:
strenuous vilification campaign in the press, etc. |
Oh c-mon. Do You think image of Poland in western press is good? Every country, especially similar yet poorer, as Poland or Russia in comparison to the West, gets bashed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
So the notion of a strategic asset is not alien to Americans, as expected. What do you think, if Rosneft had the bucks to buy Exxon and wanted to, would it be allowed to? I have some doubts. |
Yes, the government has allowed huge companies to be bought by foreign multinationals. Chrysler was one of the world's largest automakers and so could be considered a natiojnal asset but the truth is the company is stronger and better off since its merger with Mercedes. They now have more resources and make better cars while workers didn't lose anything. The factories haven't moved, are unlikely to be moved in the near future, and the number of jobs are much more secure. In short the company, and thus the nation, are now stronger competitors because of the foreign investment.
Loads of oil companies, engineering companies, and even national landmarks (like the Empire State Building) have been sold to foreigners. Almost always it makes economic sense, creates more jobs, and results in net capital being brought into the country. In the 1980's nationalists in the US were upset that their old WW2 enemy the Japanese were allowed to buy the Empire State building but the Japanese were willing to pay top price so the company sold. A few years later the Japanese realestate market crashed and the company had to sell the Empire State Building in order to pay off debts back in Japan. The result was the Japanese lost hundreds of millions of dollars and the old owner rebought the building at a fraction of what the Japanese paid. 
Foreign investment really does help a nation develop and become more competitive. Both the US and China have figured this out but it seems the Russian government is more worried about cronism then real economic growth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saras
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Apr 1999
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
So the notion of a strategic asset is not alien to Americans, as expected. What do you think, if Rosneft had the bucks to buy Exxon and wanted to, would it be allowed to? I have some doubts.
|
There is a difference between Exxon and Lockheed which you unfortunately failed to notice I think it'd be fine and dandy as far as US Government is concerned if Rosneft wanted to buy Exxon. Or Goldman Sachs. Or Citicorp. As long as they play fair, ie, no Russian-style tricks such as competitor killings, dodging taxes etc
quote:
Perhaps I shouldn't have said this, sorry. At least, not on that occasion. |
Its not that I was insulted, its more of a "man, YOU call me naive and then advocate limiting sales of "strategic" assets to Kremlin cronies in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY?"
quote:
It would be more difficult to deal with them in the times of crisis. Besides, they are less likely to reinvest inside the country. In addition, it is the sacrosanct natural resourses we are talking about after all. |
What crisis? If they start operating these companies in a way that serioysly undermines your national security (i.e., running a spy ring or something), you just nationalise them. Eminent domain, man.
quote:
In other words, just a regime of maximum favoritism from the West in all possible respects. |
I'd beg to differ. We have a witholding tax, a blatant violation of the principles on which EU was founded.
quote:
Russia is a different story, as I have already explained. |
How is it different? How can teh evil west enslave mother Russia by buying her assets?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
|
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Poland was forgiven part of the debt, lots remain. We'll be repaying the debt for decades to come.
I doubt Russia was not forgiven any part of its debt.
|
Russia was not forgiven any part of the debt (some part was only restructured). Poland was, and it was a huge part. You just fail to enlighten us on the matter.
quote:
I don't recall we received any
|
You are very unthankful.
quote:
It's not "agression". Have Serbia not persecuted Albanians in Kosovo, there'd be no affair at all.
|
And now all Serbs are expelled from Kosovo under NATO's watchful care.
quote:
How was it directed against Russia?
|
Agression in violation of the UN charter. Attacking our informal ally, despite others bahaved equally bad. In spite of our objections.
quote:
These are not new. EU enlarged and so, the old rules are applied to the new boarder. It's hardly directed against Russia. Russia gets special treatement, in fact.
|
Whatever it was, whatever explanation you can provide, the naked fact is that the visa wall came closer to Russia. It is the result that matters.
quote:
You'd have to specify. But a note: Russia is not the only country that has interests in this region and there are no reasons why its interests should be protected more than anyone else's. It's a free game.
|
Russia's interests there are more vital than the others'. And I wish it was recognized a 'free game' by the West, so that the Ukrainian people could hear.
In any event, my point here was just that all this puts a huge additional strain over Russia, a strain that Poland has the luxury not to have.
quote:
I thin EU is doing something about it.
|
Great. But it remains a fact that the EU admitted, against its own principles, countries committing blatant violations of human rights.
quote:
And as far as I remember, Russians could get citizenship as long as they learned the local language and info about the state.
|
They were already living there. It's a human right violation to deny them citizenship on any grounds. Newcomers, on the other hand, should be required to pass the language exam for citizenship indeed.
quote:
Oh c-mon. Do You think image of Poland in western press is good? Every country, especially similar yet poorer, as Poland or Russia in comparison to the West, gets bashed. |
I'd love to see the same level of vilification in the Western press towards Poland. The problem is I don't see any.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
|
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Yes, the government has allowed huge companies to be bought by foreign multinationals. Chrysler was one of the world's largest automakers and so could be considered a natiojnal asset but the truth is the company is stronger and better off since its merger with Mercedes. They now have more resources and make better cars while workers didn't lose anything. The factories haven't moved, are unlikely to be moved in the near future, and the number of jobs are much more secure. In short the company, and thus the nation, are now stronger competitors because of the foreign investment.
Loads of oil companies, engineering companies, and even national landmarks (like the Empire State Building) have been sold to foreigners. Almost always it makes economic sense, creates more jobs, and results in net capital being brought into the country. In the 1980's nationalists in the US were upset that their old WW2 enemy the Japanese were allowed to buy the Empire State building but the Japanese were willing to pay top price so the company sold. A few years later the Japanese realestate market crashed and the company had to sell the Empire State Building in order to pay off debts back in Japan. The result was the Japanese lost hundreds of millions of dollars and the old owner rebought the building at a fraction of what the Japanese paid.
Foreign investment really does help a nation develop and become more competitive. Both the US and China have figured this out but it seems the Russian government is more worried about cronism then real economic growth. |
Hey, guys, I never claimed that America was not selling its assets to foreigners, nor I argued against foreign investment in principle. The point is that it's up to each country to decide what kind of investment it welcomes, what kind of investment is overall (I underline this word!) beneficial for the country. The American gov makes such decisions all the time. Now Russia made a decision in what concerns development of its natural resources, and that decision seems wise to me.
Nonetheless, just a couple of more specific comments on what Oerdin said here.
1) Each of the American assets sold accounts only for a tiny fraction of the federal tax revenue. In contrast, the Russian company Yukos accounts for up to 10% of it.
2) Oerdin's examples are not related to the natural resources.
3) Japan and Germany are just Western allies, who are besides strategically dependent on America. I am not quite sure the Americans would feel equally dandy if their assets were purchased by companies of a potentially hostile world power.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
|
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saras
There is a difference between Exxon and Lockheed which you unfortunately failed to notice I think it'd be fine and dandy as far as US Government is concerned if Rosneft wanted to buy Exxon. Or Goldman Sachs. Or Citicorp.
|
I saw the difference. That's why I asked you about Exxon.  Thanks for your opinion. Nonetheless, my gut feeling on the matter is quite different.
quote:
As long as they play fair, ie, no Russian-style tricks such as competitor killings, dodging taxes etc
|
Very funny.
quote:
Its not that I was insulted, its more of a "man, YOU call me naive and then advocate limiting sales of "strategic" assets to Kremlin cronies in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY?"
|
Better Putin's cronies than putting national security in jeopardy.
quote:
quote:
It would be more difficult to deal with them in the times of crisis. Besides, they are less likely to reinvest inside the country. In addition, it is the sacrosanct natural resourses we are talking about after all. |
What crisis? If they start operating these companies in a way that serioysly undermines your national security (i.e., running a spy ring or something), you just nationalise them. Eminent domain, man.
|
Nationalize?? This will only give them a pretext for invasion: to protect American property.  No, thanks. It's wiser to nip the issue in the bud.
quote:
quote:
In other words, just a regime of maximum favoritism from the West in all possible respects. |
I'd beg to differ. We have a witholding tax, a blatant violation of the principles on which EU was founded.
|
OK, not in all possible respects perhaps. But you have to recognize that, compared to Russia, you received quite a dose of favoritism.
quote:
quote:
Russia is a different story, as I have already explained. |
How is it different? How can teh evil west enslave mother Russia by buying her assets? |
Lithuania is already enslaved, no matter who owns assets there. Russia still cherishes the hope for protracted sovereignty. Don't you think that e.g. owning an oil company providing 10% of the budget gives one too much of a leverage?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Russia was not forgiven any part of the debt (some part was only restructured). Poland was, and it was a huge part. You just fail to enlighten us on the matter.
|
I believe it is different.
quote:
You are very unthankful.
|
Yes, your ministry of foreign affairs accused us with that we're complaining about Jalta treaty, which was, according to your ministry, just marvelous to Poland - after all, Poland received enlargement of territory in the west and was "guaranteed freedom, also by USSR".
That Poland lost its eastern half and the talk about the freedom was a masque of vassalisation, your ministry does not seem to remember.
quote:
And now all Serbs are expelled from Kosovo under NATO's watchful care.
|
That's not true.
quote:
Agression in violation of the UN charter. Attacking our informal ally, despite others bahaved equally bad. In spite of our objections.
|
WHo acted equally bad? Albanians only now have a possibility of acting "equally bad"
And if You're chosing villains as your allies, well, don't be suprised.
quote:
Whatever it was, whatever explanation you can provide, the naked fact is that the visa wall came closer to Russia. It is the result that matters.
|
Was it directed against Russia?
Was it possible to avoid it?
Aren't Russians given faciliations?
Is Russia going to fall because of it?
We pay visas to Russia as well - just more expensive.
quote:
Russia's interests there are more vital than the others'.
|
And who claims so? Russia?
And even if so, why should anyone care about it by Russia itself? That no-one's willing to give ultra special treatment to Russian interests it's not discrimination
quote:
And I wish it was recognized a 'free game' by the West, so that the Ukrainian people could hear.
|
It was not a free game?
quote:
In any event, my point here was just that all this puts a huge additional strain over Russia, a strain that Poland has the luxury not to have.
|
Do You thin no-one has problems but Russia?
quote:
Great. But it remains a fact that the EU admitted, against its own principles, countries committing blatant violations of human rights.
|
What are these blatant violations?
quote:
They were already living there. It's a human right violation to deny them citizenship on any grounds. Newcomers, on the other hand, should be required to pass the language exam for citizenship indeed.
|
A question, I honestly don't know: did people under USSR have a citizenship of USSR only, or were You also assigned to a specific republic?
If the first answer is correct, You may be right, though I understand them: they were annexed by Moscow and when they are set free, they have a quater of Russian population that does not even know the state language.
quote:
I'd love to see the same level of vilification in the Western press towards Poland. The problem is I don't see any. |
I assure You there is. In tv relations, it's a tradition to show images from the poorest eastern villages and beggars - bah, in Sweden they were still using materials from the 70's as once was discovered.
Poland was being called "Troian horse" or even "Troian donkey" of America in Europe and is being badmouthed by even influential magazines. And You could only imagine the rage after Poland decided to defend its rights given in Nice treaty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
|
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
2) Oerdin's examples are not related to the natural resources. |
Chilean companies own the three largest copper mines in the US, a South African company owns the only diamond mine in the US, BP owns half of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, Saudi Aramco owns the largest oil field in California (dispite the fact it is illegal for foreigners to own oil fields in Saudi Arabia), the Chinese have bought huge tracks of forest in the US to feed their nation's desire for wood and paper.
The US lets them as long as 1) they follow American laws 2) they pay their taxes on time 3) don't engage in anti-competitive practices. True, natural resources production is a tiny fraction of the total economy (dispite the fact that by volume the US produces is about the same natural resource wise as Russia) but this is because for 230 years the government has followed a policy to promote private enterprise. If Russia follows the basics (i.e. protects private property from theft, the rule of law, equality before the law, no cronism, free and open competition) then in time Russia will become an economic titan just as the US and Japan have done and how China is now doing.
If the Russian government would stop the knee jerk nationalism and instead tried to behaive like the rest of Europe then Russia would likely find itself in a position similiar to China. Russia could sign trade agreements with the EU like Turkey has and then use its large population and lower production costs to attract much of the manufacturers of Europe. There'd be jobs for most people, far more money in the economy, and the Russian state would get more taxes then ever. To bad Putin has decided to go with an old and failed route instead.
Last edited by Oerdin on 14-02-2005 at 17:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
Why they didn't? Perhaps because your belowed Albainan brothers slauther them on their own holy ground? Kosovo is the Serbian land, it's thier core land, the heart of Serbia. Now being Serbian and be there means you'll be dead soon. Silly Serbs, they do not want to be killed by US-backed enlighten Muslilm Albanians (pro-western and pro-democratic and liberal as usuall, of course)
Thank you very much, for you ****ing bombs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Russian Newspaper Issues Wry Retraction
Edition Is a Protest Against Court Ruling
By... pet of Berezovsky |
Complete sh!t.
I especially enjoyed this part:
"An appeals court ruled last month that the newspaper, which is owned by the exiled tycoon Boris Berezovsky, a political enemy of Putin's, had damaged the bank's reputation".
This ****er is WANTED here for his crimes, not EXILED.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
No, like 75% in entire Cieszyn region, more in the part Poland's taken. Polish majority was even visible on Czech maps.
|
Whatever. Lands taken by USSR in 1939 were populted by Ukranians and Byelorussians (I'm talking about 90+ percents figures here) and these were the lands captured by Poland in 1921.
In case of Poland, you justify such actions, in case of USSR you condemn them, despite Poland was the first who started it.
quote:
Do You think it was done intentionally by Gorbaczow?
And c-mon, listen to yourself... |
Sure, Gorbachev is the traitor and he has no idea about histrory. His "histroric mission" was to destroy the USSR. And this ****** fullfiled his mission. Why should I (or anyone else) trust to incompetent traitor in matters where his goal was to lie as much as he could to make USSR look worse as possible?
I trust Gorbachev no more than I trust Dr. Goebels, because they are speaking the same.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-02-2005 23:45
Why should I exaplain what protectionism is to you? I though its an American invention.
What Russian government? The case was initiated by bank whose reputetion suffered, because of this article.
|