 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
Actually, I also nominate GePap for the Barbarian award. This will be given annually to the poster who best justifies Barbarianism, which includes any act of expropriation without compensation by one people from another.
Hall of Fame entries already include Julius Ceasar for his conquest of Gaul, Giseric the Vandal for his sacking of Rome, Eric the Red on behalf of all Viking plunders, and Elizabeth I for sponsoring the Pirates of the Carribean.
Can GePeP be elected to the Hall of Fame? Only history will tell.
Last edited by Ned on 30-05-2003 at 02:49
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Michael the Great, the left seems consistently opposed to the United States government opposing nationalization of US companies without compensation by radical elements in Latin America. The left seems to have some ideology that US companies "exploit" (as in "steal") both the resources and the labor of any country in which its invests. |
You mean bribing corrupt officials you helped install in the first place to give you below-market contracts for mineral rights, land, etc. isn't exploitation?
quote:
For this reason, the left almost advocates that US companies be nationalized, of course, without compensation because of this evil exploitation.
|
There should definitely be compensation, in magnitude to the theft/exploitation being carried out. Sometimes, mere nationalization of the physical assets isn't adequate compensation. 
quote:
So when United States government objects to this, it is of course wrong, because such nationalization itself was correct from the left's point-of-view, and America's intervention to protect its citizens property is nothing but naked "imperialism."
|
Exactly. "Protecting citizens property" is not a valid reason to invade a country, kill civilians, destroy third-party property, depose existing sovereign governments, etc. Sue 'em, or impose trade sanctions, yes. Invasion, no.
quote:
In a nutshell, though, US companies no more exploit the resources and labor of Latin American countries than they exploit resources and labor of America.
|
US companies operating in the US are subject to Federal and state laws, the judiciary of the US and it's states, and the parties affected (citizens) are enfranchised to vote, so they have a remedy be electing legislatures and executive officials that can regulate abusive behavior and enforce those regulations. Until quite recently (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act being the main impediment), US laws did not apply to US companies' actions overseas. In many cases, they still don't, or the laws are effectively subverted by merely creating wholly owned subsidiaries chartered offshore.
FCPA isn't even a real impediment - you just can't knowingly bribe a foreign official. Nothing says you can't hire a relative of that official as a high-priced consultant to help you obtain contracts on the terms you want. Bribery is just so unsubtle and crude. Local "governmental relations" and "customs expediting" "consultants" are a much nicer way to do business in the modern era.
The Nicaraguan's remedies for dealing with United Fruit were to face the bayonets of United States Marines. If you had a problem with M. A. Hanna's mineral rights contracts in Cuba, you didn't have to deal with the US Marines, just the US supported puppet Batista (who had ten percent kickback from Hanna on the mineral rights, as did his wife) and his "police" forces, which were notorious for torture and murder. The US was instrumental in installing and/or supporting murderous butchering scum like Duvalier, Somoza, Batista, Pinochet and others. Batista was bad enough that the mainstream US press in the Eisenhower '50s even questioned why we favored such a greasy SOB.
quote:
If the principal the left advocates with respect to Latin American countries is valid, then US companies should be nationalized even in the United States, of course, without compensation. |
The principles advocated vary, but equitable adjustment of contracts which are fraudulently entered into is a legitimate exercise of sovereignty for any new government. The only real
quibble is the method employed.
quote:
But this is not nothing less than extreme Marxism, is it not? This is Communism.
|
No, señor. It's just a leetle equitable adjustment because you had your hands in our cookie jar for a long time. It's nationalist, not communist. Like Molotov's song "frijolero." 
quote:
So admit it, Michael the Great, you are a communist. |
Hasta la victoria siempre, pinche gringo.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
Michael the Great, a well reasoned response. I also agree that to the extent US companies engage in bribery on the one hand, and the US government support the corrupt governments receiving the bribes, both the US companies and the US governments are wrong. However, it appears that we have turn our back on our corrupt past. Not only have we past the Corrupt Practices Act, we deliberately pulled the plug on certain dictators who had taken too much bribe money. I am thinking of a certain Marcos from the Pilippines for example.
So, MtG, you are, in the final analyisis, an American patriot!
BTW, what do you make of the not irrational argument that US businessmen must offer bribes because, after all, they are in competition with European, Russian and Japanese businesses?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
At times, I admit, I don't now the facts involving US involment in Latin America all that well. What suggest is that we discuss them here whenever they come up. I find such threads educational and very enjoyable.
And, I really appreciate your input, Master Zen. |
How can we discuss them when you yourself are admitting to trolling? I for one, despite my sometimes very heated arguments, have never said something I don't belive myself, and have never said it just to provoke or delight myself in the responses of others.
If you want to discuss, let's do so, but let's really stick to reasonable debate, not just mindless trolling.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
For the sake of trying to have an worthwhile discussion, I'd like to revisit the nationalization of foreign assets.
As MtG put it, the nationalization was a response to "having a hand in the cookie jar" - exploitive practices by US corporations in Latin America.
That makes a certain amount of sense to me, and given that I know a little History, it rings some bells with respect to the East India Company.
So here's the thing: provided we agree that nationalizing corporate assets isn't something to go to war over (and I'm sure there are those who disagree), what is the best way to prevent such situations from arising, and what is the best response if/when it does occur in the future? The way I see it, there are four options:
1) Do nothing. Status quo.
2) Slap an embargo on the offending country, hoping to discourage others from going the nationalization route in the future.
3) Don't do business in the 3rd world.
4) Pass legislation that regulates how US corporations act outside the US in an attempt to prevent exploitative practices that might lead to an extreme response down the road.
1 doesn't do much for me, 2 isn't likely to help anyone - even if it might "feel" good, 3 is laughable on its face. That leaves 4. But 4, even if the legislation is really well written (  ), guarantees nothing, and should it be passed into law and then a "nationalization" situation arises, the companies harmed would be at least somewhat justified in demanding US government assistance.... which brings us back to armed response.
Discuss, if you will.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-05-2003 02:29
|