It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is Hugo Chavez good for the U.S? Will his Anti-Big Biz make it to the States?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:48 PM
Although the guy is a power-bent dictator who would like nothing more than to be named King of Venezuela his policies might actually be helping to sway the tide against Big Business.

By kicking out foreign oil companies Chavez has claimed once again what is rightly theirs, Venezuelan Oil. Why should Venezuela be forced to rely on American Companies to produce their oil.

For the little guy, me, who often gets burned by big business but never gets to see big business get burned, this was a good one! American Oil Companies supposedly lost billions on this deal alone.

I am impressed with Hugo Chavez he had the character to stand up to big business, something our Administration(Bush) could learn a lot about.

Just imagine if our Government stepped in and stopped Windfall profits from happening in sectors such as energy and other basic life commodities.(While I don't wish the Government to stop all Windfall profits only in basic life commodities such as energy/garbage/sewage)

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:16 PM
Between Big Business and the Government, you are getting the shaft from the government more.

I'd concentrate on them before backing anything Chavez is doing. We need less Socialism not more.

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:22 PM
Jethro, you are correct that we are taking the shaft more from our Government than big business. However, who controls our government or maybe better said what controls government, the answer is money. If we can cut the amount of money going to feed our politicians the quality of those politicians will rise. As long as we have big money to be made in congress, corruption will be rampant.

Are you suggesting that socialized health care would be a bad deal for the average American and it's economy?

While I do agree with you, that socialism is not the answer, there does need to be some sort of mechanism to check big business. Big business due to its size and gravity is in itself a form of Socialism. Don't believe me, look how the biggest Companies in the US are run, they run like little micro-societies. Entertainment, gyms, restaurants, etc all on their property. The only thing they are missing to constitute it as a "BranchDavidian Compound"are bedrooms and Bibles.

The closest solution I see would be to enourage a greater amount of small-medium sized companies to replace Super-Sized Business. You could go about breaking down the international businesses on a state by state level to achieve this.

Second, for necessary goods(basic foods, water, garbage, sewage, energy) you would set up nets to stop windfall profits from occurring.

Third, I would rarely offer special rates to Big Biz and fix the ones that have already been put into place.

These safety nets, although restrictions on the "free market" would help a lot in my opinion to help encourage a "fair market."

Finally, it is exactly these Super-Sized Businesses that are getting us tied up in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. These companies are like out of control black holes that will devour anything that steps in its path.

Hugo Chavez is not the solution to the U.S.'s predicament however he does shead light onto the problems of America as viewed by the outside world.

We must remember that he is not the only one who feels this way in the Western Hemisphere. Although it seems as if the average American doesn't have a choice with controlling Big Business we actually do. The American People could vote to either have these companies dissolove into many smaller ones or to have these companies move under the condition that they would not be allowed to operate within the U.S.

The U.S. is too great of a Nation to be held hostage to a few Big Businesses.

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:03 AM
Is communism good for the US?

No. It isn't good for anyone. Big business was good in Venezuela while they were spending billions on exploration and infrastructure. Now that they're investment has finally started paying for itself the Gov't comes in and steals the whole deal? And not only is that OK with you- it's a good idea?

Just because you think big business is screwing you doesn't make it OK to get screwed. The only way "to make it fair" to everyone is to tear the most successful down to the lowest denominator. This can't be good for anyone.

PS- Socialized medicine is not a good idea either. Nothing is free. Don't you get it? Our huge tax rate would have to pay for it instead of our huge insurance bill. The companies we work for use the money we earn them to pay for our health insurance. Becoming more dependant on the gov't is exactly what they want.

You are the answer to your problems- not the gov't! Believe in yourself...

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:53 AM
Simply because this idea is not a "laissez-fair" economic system doesn't mean that it is communism or socialism. The fact that many already see it this way show how committed many Americans are to the cause of Capitalism no matter how blind they might be to the facts.

How can you call this idea Communism if I am merely talking about a hand full of companies that are responsible for basic life goods such as (basic food, water, garbage, sewage, and energy)

The government today already regulates electricity like this, does this mean that the U.S. is already Communist?

If someone needs one of these products to sustain themselves, so they can continue to live, they should be able to get it without paying 3 to 4 times what the product is actually worth. Making someone pay that much more for a basic product isn't called capitalism it is called expoitation!

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:36 AM
A government take over of business, no matter how big or small, is at least socialism. You may only be talking, "about a hand full of companies that are responsible for basic life goods" right now but what's next? Or who? You say oil is a basic necessity of life which is a huge step away from food, clothing and shelter. Even if this can be justified, which anything can be, what will be the next industry considered a basic necessity of life? Education? Should the gov't own the University system? What about cars? Should the govt take over GM or Ford to make sure that the people don't have to pay 3-4 times what something is worth? If most of the cost of a new vehicle is due to the cost of healthcare and pensions for retiries of that corporation then does that make it OK?

You are on a slippery slope my friend and the jagged rocked seem to be reaching up towards us.

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:51 AM
My friend, look around you, we have been on this slippery slope for over a hundred years, and we are doing just fine. Of course the crux comes at where do we draw the line.

To me we must merely distinguish between what a healthy profit ought to look like and exploitation.

The oil industry has been exploiting its consumers ever since oil has been produced. Whenever there is a lack of competition, or better yet when a few players get together and make the rules, collusion, that ought to be illegal and should not be tolerated. Americans use to believe in rules to prevent Collusion from happening in the free market, of course this was many years before the average American started owning stock and started considering themselves as being on the Board to the likes of Exxon, Big Blue, and whatever other companies they might have in their profile.

If we can prove that there is collusion in a certain industry, would it at that time be alright to break up the companies that were in on it?

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:07 AM
Collusion among the oil companies has been investigated over and over again and always proven otherwise. When the oil companies profits are .09 dollars to the gallon but the govt's are .22 dollars to the gallon who is gouging who?

The price of a barrell of oil is decided by the free market. Mostly due to how speculators feel about the futures market. Oil is traded 24-7 on the world market by people putting their money where their mouth is. Isn't that fair?

The determining factor in any companies profit is what the market will bare. It's true in every industry from electronics to realestate. No govt should have a hand in this decision. We can't count on them to do the right thing in areas that they're supposed to know about. Surely we cant trust them to make wide sweeping changes to something they know nothing about.

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:12 AM
Here is one article about excessive govt profits on oil...

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:24 AM
Regardless of what the reports say about Collusion I don't believe it. The oil industry could of easily bought off the people making the reports. When there are only 5-6 world players in the Global Market for Oil that should be seen in itself as collusion.

Another easy way of proving there is collusion in our market place is to look at the different prices on gas in your neighborhood. Although prices do regularly drop and rebound according to preasures on the market why do Chevron, Exxon, BP etc why are they always within a dime of each other. If they are getting their gas from different companies at different rates than each other their should be a wider difference in price on a 3 dollar gallon of gas than a dime.

This is proof that the other gas stations watch the other to see what they post so that they can make just as much or almost just as much. Ahh, the beauty of Collusion.

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:51 AM
I have already noted that one determining factor of profits is what the market will bare. Regardless of what you payed to put the gas in the ground at the gas-mart, what the market will bare changes all the time due to local competition. This could as easily go the other way on the gas co's. Ahh, the beauty of capitalism.

You still haven't noted where this thought process winds up. In the class rooms, in the home. If you opened a business who would be better qualified to set your profit level? You or the govt? If the govt was in charge of deciding how much money you could make, who would ever go into business for themselves? It's none of the govt's business IMO.

How many OPEC countries are included in your 5-6 big players theory? Do you think big oil could change the price of a barrell as easily as Ahmadinajad does with one outburst?

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:29 AM
You sound like you really paid attention in your econ classes, that's great, good for you. A defender of the free market, how noble you are!

Unfortunately, as shown with Hugo Chavez, even the great law of supply and demand comes second to what countries wish for their citizens.

If you don't believe there is collusion with Big Oil AND the members of Opec, I would like to watch a movie on your forehead sometime. Yes, I know that the US taxes oil, do you know what taxes European countries put on oil?

Im all for the free market, however when big biz sets up barriers for competitors to enter into the market I do not call that a free market, I call it a hijacked market.

The "free market" was meant to encourage competition not to discourage it, that is what is happening here.

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Low Orbit
You sound like you really paid attention in your econ classes, that's great, good for you. A defender of the free market, how noble you are!

You could use a refresher...

Unfortunately, as shown with Hugo Chavez, even the great law of supply and demand comes second to what countries wish for their citizens.

How so? What has a Chaves dictatorship done to surpass the laws of supply-demand? By hi-jacking an entire industry for his own purposes? Do you really believe he's doing this "for his citizens?" How's Castro doing? How are his citizens??

If you don't believe there is collusion with Big Oil AND the members of Opec, I would like to watch a movie on your forehead sometime.

It would be more helpful for you to watch a movie from inside my head...

Yes, I know that the US taxes oil, do you know what taxes European countries put on oil?

The point of this thread assumedly was to gain support for dismantling big oil because it's profits were too high. I've shown you that the govt profits more then twice the big oil profits and yet you insisit that they should be in control?

I am doing my best to present an obviously distasteful POV- reality. You won't answer any of my questions about the big picture reasons Chavez is wrong. You won't deal with the reasonable request for an opinion about where your policy would lead. You offer sarcasm about my level of education. You use a tactic that is becoming worrisomly more prevalent- stating that you are for what I am for, BUT- when in fact what you are for is exactly opposite to what you state.

Now you will carry on blindly in the full light of day because of the way you feel.

You can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts. One big reason gas costs so much is directly because of how far the govt has already reached into this industry. All the limits forced on this industry by environmentalist whackos and their heels in office have all but busted our domestic capacity to stay out of these messes- much less get out of them once we've been shoved here.

European style tax on oil would put us in a worse spot then we're in. I thought you were looking for a solution?

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:06 PM
Low Orbit.

Well, I think Socialized Medicine is a bad idea, straight up and down. The serious problem is with monopolies or virtual monopolies. Media, energy, cars, etc.

The reason for this is the centralization of money, high regulation, and heavy taxes on people.

Additionally, I would remove all government support of business in the way of safety nets, loans, bailouts, subsidies, etc.

This could cause a serious crash of many major industries, which in the end would be good for everyone. Many of the short sighted thinkers say this would hurt America's wallet, but to be honest with you we've been in non-benefitial growth for some time now.

We MUST continue to grow simply to keep from crashing and to maintain the status quo, but really cost is high and it is outgrowing income.

I have many ideas on how to combat this, but no, socialized medicine is good on paper and for a few years, but it comes to the same end always.

posted on May, 19 2006 @ 01:51 PM
I agree with you Krazy, I d love to hear some of your ideas on how we can we deal with this problem of the Super-Sized Corporate world.

There is no reason why the US should prop-up big biz.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Low Orbit
There is no reason why the US should prop-up big biz.

Read again how much money the govt makes because of big business. What do you mean there is no reason? You're the one who has no reasons...

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 04:51 PM
The government loses a lot of money too because of big biz, it doesn't always work out. Regardless, the more money government makes on big biz the less the citizens of the US matter and the more big biz matters. That sounds like socialism to me?

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:05 PM
Did you do well in any of your classes?

This conversation is worthless. What a waste of time. Ba-bye...

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 04:26 PM
Good Bye, what you don't realize early bird is that what is best for American's bottom line might not be best for America or Americans.

Early Bird if only you could value other things as much as you value money.

Good luck getting yourself out of the box you're in.

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 03:01 PM
Low Orbit: I have a number of ideas, but most of them stem from getting the nationalized money back into the hands of the average joe.

If we placed a flat tax with no loopholes on medium and large business that was less than their percentage tax now (although it could be above or below what they actually pay depending on the company and how slick they are), removed income tax over, say, 10 years, cut Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security over the same time (with the exception of SS for people over 40 who would have to stick with it), then we would be doing far better.

Income tax and Social Spending are now about the same percentage of revenue and spending. 50%.

In about 20 years or less it will be 80%, so we can figure out that more taxes are needed.

In order to counter big business, we need compitition.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in