6 ms·

> minus of course the "compensation" for the years in which US companies were kept out of the country I don’t want to sound like I’m running coverage for the A

by lurk2 10mo ago

> minus of course the "compensation" for the years in which US companies were kept out of the country I don’t want to sound like I’m running coverage for the Americans, but wasn’t a lot of that infrastructure built by foreign multinationals and then expropriated by Chávez in 2007?

throwaway173738 10mo ago
If it was done in a legal process then it should be litigated in that country.
trymas 10mo ago
> built by foreign multinationals and then expropriated by Chávez in 2007? If you follow this reasoning - after what happened today - you will get Iran 2.0: Venezuelan boogaloo I have zero optimism that after this - ordinary Venezuelans will have better outcomes in 10 years time. Current USA government is some weird klepto-oligrachy. Hates brown people. It’s not doing it out of benevolence to Venezuelans. Venezuelans will get either colonialist resource extraction treatment or some power vacuum will bring just another despot.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- lolive 10mo ago
  Venezuela is the new Africa [or India [or Philipins]]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- thread_id 10mo ago
  Ask the Guyanese next door if they think they are getting a good deal from oil exploitation: https://ieefa.org/articles/guyana-paying-oil-costs-20-years-future-no-guarantees-money-will-be-there-when-needed https://ieefa.org/articles/guyana-paying-oil-costs-20-years-...
  - rayiner 10mo ago
    What is Guyana’s GDP without western oil technology? https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Guyana/GDP_per_capita_constant_dollars/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Guyana/GDP_per_capita_const...
- expedition32 10mo ago
  We have already seen this plot in Iraq!
- foxglacier 10mo ago
  > Hates brown people You're reading tealeaves to support your own hate-fueled nonsense belief. Correlation doesn't equal causation and all that.
  - the_gastropod 10mo ago
    It blows my mind anyone can hold this opinion after 10+ years of Trump very publicly spewing racist garbage. Let's just review a few recent examples: - Claimed Haitian immigrants were eating neighbors' pets - Currently claiming Somalian immigrants have setup vast networks of fraudulent daycares - While he's worked diligently to stop immigration from, what he calls, "shithole countries" like Somalia, Haiti, and Afghanistan, he's advocated for increased immigration from "nice" or "beautiful" countries like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. He also specially carved out a special South African Afrikaner refugee status for white South Africans. - Habitually calls predominantly non-white opponents "low-iq individuals". - Repeatedly called SARS-CoV-2 the Chinese virus, "kung-flu", etc. - Told four congresswomen of color (3 of whom were born in the U.S.) to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came". A bipartisan resolution was passed in The House condemning these comments as racist. - And we can go back a long time ago, and remember the Central Park Five, where he relentlessly attacked five innocent black and latino children, calling for the death penalty for them. Even after DNA evidence proved their innocence, Trump never apologized or acknowledged wrongdoing. Each of these you could try to individually explain away as a misunderstanding or whatever. But there's an abundantly clear pattern of racism, not just with Trump, but much of his administration.
harmmonica 10mo ago
Your comment triggers so many thoughts, but the first one is I'm so friggin' naive, which is embarrassing. In my fantasy world corporations make investment decisions based on risk. They invest in a country like Venezuela and part of the due diligence is evaluating whether things may go sideways, like in any investment, and what plan b is if they do. And if plan b is getting the government to backstop you with money, guns and/or regulations then that would not be a viable strategy. But, at every level in the US, that plan b is viable. And it's used over and over and over again, from small local businesses with local politicians to the US Federal Government and military for the likes of the oil industry. At what point do you just accept the truth: that you (me!) are the dumb one because you hold onto this fantasy of how you think things ought to be as opposed to how they are?
- solenoid0937 10mo ago
  Why is plan (b) bad? From my perspective it is certainly how things ought to be. If my property is nationalized in another country by force, I am fully in favor of my country swinging its dick around to get it back. And what is to say that plan (b) isn't taken into account when doing the risk assessment in plan (a)?
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    In your world everybody will be at war with each other. The way to deal with the risk of foreign nationalization of your assets is to price it in or to forego the opportunity. Expecting your country to go to war for your private interests is ridiculous. You can go to court if you want and if you lose you'll have to take your lumps. 1898 is a while ago (the Banana wars).
    - lurk2 10mo ago
      > Expecting your country to go to war for your private interests is ridiculous. At the risk of coming across as flippant: Why? I don’t think the math has worked out on most peer conflicts during the past hundred years. The cost of the operation has likely already exceeded the value of whatever infrastructure was left in Venezuela to be reclaimed. But why should we expect courts and bailiffs to enforce the law domestically and not expect soldiers to enforce it internationally?
rayiner 10mo ago
That’s the story in every oil producing third world country. Without western countries, and these days China, they would just have oil in the ground because they lack the technology and capital to explore for it and extract it. They want the colonizers to come just long enough to install the oil spigots then leave.
- thiagoharry 10mo ago
  They just do not want colonizers to steal their country and interfere in their internal decisions. Unfortunately, this is the story with every First World colonizer: they do not agree with that.
  - rayiner 10mo ago
    They want to have their cake and eat it too. Here, the Venezuelan government invited western oil companies to develop its oil fields. Then they broke the deal and stole the infrastructure the western countries had built. That’s very different from actual colonization, where countries showed up and expropriated resources the natives were already developing.
    - xg15 10mo ago
      So strange that only the US has the expertise to do prospection and build oil rigs and no one else...
      - rayiner 10mo ago
        These countries are also mad at Britain and the Netherlands. In a few decades they’ll be mad at the Chinese too. If these countries had been smarter they would have negotiated better deals and solicited competition from international companies to get the best terms. But that’s their own fault.
    - Rapzid 10mo ago
      Oil companies were apparently compensated, but also allegedly not enough. Companies were awarded further compensation in international arbitration, but Venezuela has avoided fully paying up. If that's all accurate there are numbers out there for what they owe, and it shouldn't be whatever the POTUS decides.
yunohn 10mo ago
What happens to the infrastructure built or businesses run or labor contributed by “illegal” immigrants who are now deported? Does the USA somehow reverse it and make it disappear? Such a line of reasoning used to justify this kind of extrajudicial and warlike activity is somewhat similar to France’s nonsensical demand for long term reparations from Haiti for colonial infrastructure.
- irishcoffee 10mo ago
  > What happens to the infrastructure built or businesses run or labor contributed by “illegal” immigrants who are now deported? I believe “built” here refers to the financiers. Like when someone says “I’m building a house” they mean they’re paying to have a house built, unless they’re actually in the construction business, etc.
zinodaur 10mo ago
As someone living in a country where all of our oil wealth is being extracted by American corporations - America has a very special talent for "convincing" government officials to sign away their citizen's oil wealth. Not repairing that theft by nationalizing the oil seems more criminal than allowing the corporations to continue
- dzhiurgis 10mo ago
  At least you are paid fair share of taxes instead of being sent to gulag for questioning your dictator.

by lurk2 10mo ago

throwaway173738 10mo ago

If it was done in a legal process then it should be litigated in that country.

trymas 10mo ago

> built by foreign multinationals and then expropriated by Chávez in 2007? If you follow this reasoning - after what happened today - you will get Iran 2.0: Venezuelan boogaloo I have zero optimism that after this - ordinary Venezuelans will have better outcomes in 10 years time. Current USA government is some weird klepto-oligrachy. Hates brown people. It’s not doing it out of benevolence to Venezuelans. Venezuelans will get either colonialist resource extraction treatment or some power vacuum will bring just another despot.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
lolive 10mo ago
Venezuela is the new Africa [or India [or Philipins]]
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
thread_id 10mo ago
Ask the Guyanese next door if they think they are getting a good deal from oil exploitation: https://ieefa.org/articles/guyana-paying-oil-costs-20-years-future-no-guarantees-money-will-be-there-when-needed https://ieefa.org/articles/guyana-paying-oil-costs-20-years-...
- rayiner 10mo ago
  What is Guyana’s GDP without western oil technology? https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Guyana/GDP_per_capita_constant_dollars/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Guyana/GDP_per_capita_const...
expedition32 10mo ago
We have already seen this plot in Iraq!
foxglacier 10mo ago
> Hates brown people You're reading tealeaves to support your own hate-fueled nonsense belief. Correlation doesn't equal causation and all that.
- the_gastropod 10mo ago
  It blows my mind anyone can hold this opinion after 10+ years of Trump very publicly spewing racist garbage. Let's just review a few recent examples: - Claimed Haitian immigrants were eating neighbors' pets - Currently claiming Somalian immigrants have setup vast networks of fraudulent daycares - While he's worked diligently to stop immigration from, what he calls, "shithole countries" like Somalia, Haiti, and Afghanistan, he's advocated for increased immigration from "nice" or "beautiful" countries like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. He also specially carved out a special South African Afrikaner refugee status for white South Africans. - Habitually calls predominantly non-white opponents "low-iq individuals". - Repeatedly called SARS-CoV-2 the Chinese virus, "kung-flu", etc. - Told four congresswomen of color (3 of whom were born in the U.S.) to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came". A bipartisan resolution was passed in The House condemning these comments as racist. - And we can go back a long time ago, and remember the Central Park Five, where he relentlessly attacked five innocent black and latino children, calling for the death penalty for them. Even after DNA evidence proved their innocence, Trump never apologized or acknowledged wrongdoing. Each of these you could try to individually explain away as a misunderstanding or whatever. But there's an abundantly clear pattern of racism, not just with Trump, but much of his administration.

harmmonica 10mo ago

Your comment triggers so many thoughts, but the first one is I'm so friggin' naive, which is embarrassing. In my fantasy world corporations make investment decisions based on risk. They invest in a country like Venezuela and part of the due diligence is evaluating whether things may go sideways, like in any investment, and what plan b is if they do. And if plan b is getting the government to backstop you with money, guns and/or regulations then that would not be a viable strategy. But, at every level in the US, that plan b is viable. And it's used over and over and over again, from small local businesses with local politicians to the US Federal Government and military for the likes of the oil industry. At what point do you just accept the truth: that you (me!) are the dumb one because you hold onto this fantasy of how you think things ought to be as opposed to how they are?

solenoid0937 10mo ago
Why is plan (b) bad? From my perspective it is certainly how things ought to be. If my property is nationalized in another country by force, I am fully in favor of my country swinging its dick around to get it back. And what is to say that plan (b) isn't taken into account when doing the risk assessment in plan (a)?
- jacquesm 10mo ago
  In your world everybody will be at war with each other. The way to deal with the risk of foreign nationalization of your assets is to price it in or to forego the opportunity. Expecting your country to go to war for your private interests is ridiculous. You can go to court if you want and if you lose you'll have to take your lumps. 1898 is a while ago (the Banana wars).
  - lurk2 10mo ago
    > Expecting your country to go to war for your private interests is ridiculous. At the risk of coming across as flippant: Why? I don’t think the math has worked out on most peer conflicts during the past hundred years. The cost of the operation has likely already exceeded the value of whatever infrastructure was left in Venezuela to be reclaimed. But why should we expect courts and bailiffs to enforce the law domestically and not expect soldiers to enforce it internationally?

rayiner 10mo ago

That’s the story in every oil producing third world country. Without western countries, and these days China, they would just have oil in the ground because they lack the technology and capital to explore for it and extract it. They want the colonizers to come just long enough to install the oil spigots then leave.

thiagoharry 10mo ago
They just do not want colonizers to steal their country and interfere in their internal decisions. Unfortunately, this is the story with every First World colonizer: they do not agree with that.
- rayiner 10mo ago
  They want to have their cake and eat it too. Here, the Venezuelan government invited western oil companies to develop its oil fields. Then they broke the deal and stole the infrastructure the western countries had built. That’s very different from actual colonization, where countries showed up and expropriated resources the natives were already developing.
  - xg15 10mo ago
    So strange that only the US has the expertise to do prospection and build oil rigs and no one else...
    - rayiner 10mo ago
      These countries are also mad at Britain and the Netherlands. In a few decades they’ll be mad at the Chinese too. If these countries had been smarter they would have negotiated better deals and solicited competition from international companies to get the best terms. But that’s their own fault.
  - Rapzid 10mo ago
    Oil companies were apparently compensated, but also allegedly not enough. Companies were awarded further compensation in international arbitration, but Venezuela has avoided fully paying up. If that's all accurate there are numbers out there for what they owe, and it shouldn't be whatever the POTUS decides.

yunohn 10mo ago

What happens to the infrastructure built or businesses run or labor contributed by “illegal” immigrants who are now deported? Does the USA somehow reverse it and make it disappear? Such a line of reasoning used to justify this kind of extrajudicial and warlike activity is somewhat similar to France’s nonsensical demand for long term reparations from Haiti for colonial infrastructure.

irishcoffee 10mo ago
> What happens to the infrastructure built or businesses run or labor contributed by “illegal” immigrants who are now deported? I believe “built” here refers to the financiers. Like when someone says “I’m building a house” they mean they’re paying to have a house built, unless they’re actually in the construction business, etc.

zinodaur 10mo ago

As someone living in a country where all of our oil wealth is being extracted by American corporations - America has a very special talent for "convincing" government officials to sign away their citizen's oil wealth. Not repairing that theft by nationalizing the oil seems more criminal than allowing the corporations to continue

dzhiurgis 10mo ago
At least you are paid fair share of taxes instead of being sent to gulag for questioning your dictator.