Forum Post: Argentina nationalizes oil company
Posted 12 years ago on April 19, 2012, 10:08 p.m. EST by arturo
(3169)
from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In a move that has unnerved the City of London, Madrid, and other European capitals, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner announced on April 16 before a jubilant crowd at the Presidential Palace, that to recover her nation's "hydrocarbon sovereignty" and ensure a future of development for her people, she had ordered the expropriation of 51% of the formerly state-owned YPF oil firm, held by the Spanish oil company Repsol.
The remaining 49%, she reported, would be managed by the country's oil-producing provinces. Planning Minister Julio De Vido, a hardline nationalist and nuclear energy advocate who worked with the late President Nestor Kirchner when the latter was governor of Santa Cruz province, has been named as YPF's interim president.
London-based financial predators and their Spanish and Wall Street allies are beside themselves with rage and hysteria (see accompanying slug), outflanked by an Argentine President who is definitely not playing by the rules. She has kicked over the chessboard in an action reminiscent of what President Nestor Kirchner did in 2005 when he boldly announced a debt restructuring that offered creditors a 75% haircut — "take it or leave it."
The re-nationalization is, in a sense, also a flanking action against the provocative British oil grab off the Malvinas Islands. Keep in mind that Repsol is part of the "Spanish" — read, British — imperial recolonization of Ibero-America, which saw mass privatizations in the 1990s of many former state-sector companies, bought on the cheap. YPF, founded in 1922 as the first state-owned oil firm in Ibero-America, was an object of immense national pride for Argentines, a prized tool in the strategy for national industrial development. In an act of treason, President Carlos Menem privatized it in 1993.
Now, Cristina Fernandez has done something you "just don't do," after decades of British/Spanish privatizations. She has declared that energy and oil sovereignty is a "matter of State." This is "not a party or partisan issue," she said, but one related to "a sustainable country, one that has development and growth; it has to do with our own history." There is not a country in the world, she said, that willingly gives up control over resources so strategically vital as oil. Yet until now, Argentina was one of the only Ibero-American nations which did not enjoy such control.
The result? Repsol had "stripped" YPF, failed to invest, produce or explore, using the company, as even the Financial Times admitted today, as a "cash cow" to produce funds that would be invested outside of Argentina. "Had this policy of looting, no production, no exploration continued...we would have become an unviable country, not due to lack of resources, but to business practices" and finance, Fernandez said. She documented that Repsol's "business" model meant that in 2011, for the first time in 17 years, Argentina was forced to import oil and gas, to the tune of $9 billion, despite possessing plentiful resources.
President Fernandez underscored that now, "there is no one owner of YPF. It belongs to all of us. Let's be clear on this. I call on its workers, all those [working] today in the wells...and on all the men and women of responsibility [to understand that] Argentina must keep growing, keep moving, and that each one in his respective battle station [must] help to rebuild this great company for all Argentines." The goal, she said, is "to once again have a company that will be the pride of all Argentines."
Recognition that Argentina is taking a more successful path than the one on which Europe is currently marching to its doom, was found today even in the pages of such a German mainstream daily as the Suddeutsche Zeitung. The lead commentary in that daily on Wednesday, titled "Common Good Instead of Profit," points to the great difference between Argentine President Cristina Kirchner's policies, as shown in the decision to re-nationalize Repsol YPF, and those of Spain, just handing over its sovereignty.
All she is doing, by adding socialism to her economy, is what Norway did. Norway is the most socialized country in the West. More than 30% of the companies are publicly owned. Norway is also the richest country in the world with the highest worker productivity. So socialism obviously works:
http://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htm#chart04
She is also doing what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. If you grow up in the US, it is really shocking to know the real story behind Chavez. Chavez rejects the neoliberal Washington consensus and wants socialism for his country. So it is important that the West demonize him.
Mainstream media in the West will tell you Chavez is an evil dictator who is corrupt and is robbing his country.
But the opposite is true. He got popularly elected and everything he does is to benefit the workers, especially the poor. And the corrupt right-wing backed by the US tried to use a coup to oust him.
And it was all captured live by documentary filmmakers from Europe.
After he got elected the equivalent of Fox News in Venezuela just started reporting blatant lies about what Chavez was doing and the lies were repeated in the West.
Even though he was popularly elected, and even though the US supposedly promotes democracy, the Venezuela Tea Party equivalent, backed by the Venezuela Fox News equivalent and the endorsement of the US, stormed the Presidential Palace and ousted Chavez right after he was elected and then murdered protestors and blamed Chavez for the murders.
They didn't know their lies and scams were all caught on film.
This is a must watch documentary if you want to see what lengths the 1% are willing to go to in order to protect their rule over the world:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144#
The world needs a Chavez and a Fernandez in every country.
very good film thanks for the post
Ok, I'll check out your video. My opinion though is that what Cristina is pursuing is "workers capitalism" a form of capitalism that shares socialism's orientation towards the worker, while still maintaining its capitalistic essence.
I define socialism as public ownership of the means of production.
The oil company would be owned by the government, not the people who worked at the company, so it would be socialism, not capitalism.
The entire country will benefit financially from that company, not just the people who work there.
This is the part of your idea that intersects with my plan.. the hour-coin. It too operates on a publicly owned economy.
I understand the idea, but I think that the most benefit to society is generated by governments such as those under JFK and FDR.
I'm not suggesting worker owned companies but I am not against them either.
Certainly FDR's programs, especially with the New Deal 2, are enormous improvements to our current deal. But I do not think they are the best deal.
The most benefit to society is generated by socialism, when 100% of the income is paid out to workers, based on how hard you worked. That would enable us to pay workers from $115k to $460k per year, a deal better than you will ever get from capitalism.
And so long as goods and services are allocated by the market and there is competition, transparency and accountability, socialism would be as dynamic and progressive and innovative as capitalism.
I think you mentioned Norway, is that what workers make in Norway?
No. Although Norway is a lot better than the US, it is still mostly capitalist and still has a lot of inequality.
I do not know what their median income is. However, I do know that they produce about $80 per hour per worker (compared to the US's $65):
http://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htm#chart04
So if they were 100% socialist and allocated 100% of income to workers based on how hard they work, and you limited the top earners to 4 times more than the bottom earners (which I claim is all you need in order for income to be an effective incentive), they would be able to pay their workers from $144k to $575k per year.
I think you are talking about industrial workers, aren't you? Even under socialism, I don't think someone working in fast food is going to make $144k per year, are they?
No, I am not just talking about industrial workers. Those income numbers are based on paying every worker those incomes.
So everyone would make from $115k to $460k per year (in the US), even if you worked in fast food.
You can read more about how a socialist economy would work in this post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/1-replace-capitalism-with-democracy/
What if a small business doesn't even make $115k? How are they going to pay their workers that much money? I'll look at your site, maybe the answer is there.
That question has been asked and is answered in the comments.
What is important to understand is that increasing the minimum pay to $115k is fully paid for by lowering the top pay to $460k. So there will be no overall inflation. Your cost of living will remain the same as it is today.
However, prices will change. Some prices will go up. But they will be fully offset by other prices going down. So food may go up $3k per year in price. But if something increased in price, it would have to be fully offset by something going down in price an equivalent amount. So although food went up $3k, energy may go down $3k.
If a company does not earn enough revenue to pay for a single employee, they need to either increase their sales or increase their prices.
Well, thats the last time I will believe everything I hear on the news.
Make sure to watch that documentary. It really shines a light on what is really happening with the struggle between socialism and capitalism and the struggle between the Washington consensus and any alternative to the Washington consensus and between the 1% and the 99%.
Ausgezeichnet und vielen dank :-)
De nada.
I wounder how the american media will cover the french election tomorow specially when socialist will won
Nationalizing oil companies is just tacitly admitting what was already true, they are a branch of the state
So what is your point?
Previously the oil company was owned by an international bank.
That corporations are just front companies for the crushing jackboot of government violence and control over the economy, now you've got the multinationals, these tools of american shadow imperialism, they may say their private, but they are just means for politicians to conquer extort even more money from the tax livestock on the human farms known as countries
So you are saying that governments are the main power and that corporations are subservient to them?
I would say the problem is that America is acting as a tool of the multinationals.
This is GREAT news. I am proud of President Fernandez. She is my new hero!
Good, then check out these links, and tell me what you think:
British 'Persist with Colonialism' Still 30 Years After the Malvinas War http://larouchepac.com/node/22244
British See Malvinas, South Atlantic as Yet Another Potential War Zone http://larouchepac.com/node/21048
British Empire Targets Argentine President With Malvinas War Hysteria http://larouchepac.com/node/20933
British South Atlantic Militarization Threatens World Peace http://larouchepac.com/node/21484
It seems Argentina is Britain's Iraq. It makes me mad. I have new hate for Britain and new respect for a very smart president, Cristina Fernandez. Long live the president.
Argentina is not nearly so badly off as Iraq. Most of its suffering was about ten years ago, and that was because of an economic crisis.
It is not as bad as Iraq, but the threat or potential threat is there. There are other parallels as well like oil or telling another country far away what to do. I don't like it one bit.
There is a threat to all of us right now, where ever you are. The rich people see their power crumbling, and they'd like to start a nuclear war and wipe out or weaken most of humanity, while they hide in their bunkers and wait for it to be over:
http://larouchepac.com/ww3
[Removed]
Good.
Governments merging with corrupted businesses.
Welcome to the end,
They will still be a small time Latin American country forever on the edge of the Third World. "Latin American, meat packing glitterati". None of that oil money will get to the people. It'll end up just like mexico's nationalized oil industry.
This is what Bill Clinton said about Argentina's future:
Speaking at a June 7 conference in Buenos Aires, former U.S. President Bill Clinton praised the government's economic policies applied over the past several years, and predicted that in the next fifty years, Argentina will likely "recover its place as a world leader." He recalled that in 1908, Argentina was the "eighth wealthiest economy in the world."
Such remarks wouldn't have endeared him to the British imperialists determined to destroy this nation, three of whose representatives from Argentina's pro-British FIEL Foundation showed up in Washington last week to denounce current government policy as "unsustainable," and demand a return to the halcyon days of the free-market.
Clinton was clearly alluding to the policies implemented by former President Nestor Kirchner (2003-2007) and his wife, current President, Cristina Fernandez, which, he said, had brought about "a 180-degree turn-around in the economy," following the devastating default and crisis of 2001-2002.
To the audience of businessmen and political and labor leaders, Clinton said that Argentina had gotten a raw deal from rating agencies, after undergoing "the most surprising recovery following the unfortunate events of 2001." While other countries are increasing their debt and asking for more loans, Argentina is reducing its debt and experiencing robust economic growth. It's an excellent choice for investors, he underscored.
Prior to his speaking engagement, Clinton met privately with President Fernandez de Kirchner, during which the two discussed the global financial crisis, among other topics.
So now you believe what a US politician says? Come back in 10 years and well see where Argentina is.
Though Bill Clinton made his mistakes, I don't know of anyone who's done any better over the past fifty years.
About the ten years, that's fair enough. However, in just the year ahead, we could see anything happen from a real recovery, to global nuclear war.
You really need to get a grip on reality. This has happened a million times times in history and it always ends in disaster. Take a look at the 1970's and 80's.
Could you be a bit more specific?
Well, you could start with the numerous countries in Europe that nationalized/de-nationalized auto companies, communications companies, utilities, airlines, banks, etc. etc.
President Fernandez is not like cronies in Europe. Your comparison is way off.
Really? An honest politician with only her countries interests at heart. You are a sad, deluded little girl.
Like putting words into my mouth? I never said anything like you write. You are the sad little person, who happens to be a poor arguer, too. Peddle your wares somewhere else. Know one is buying.
The problems in Europe today are due to the monetary system, not industrial companies.
I didn't say they were. I said that the nationalization of companies in Europe during the 80's and 90's was a disaster. There is a reason they always unload the companies after 3 or 4 years.
If you any link that tells more about it, let me know and I'll check it out. I can ask some people about it also.
And you people think this is good? Ain't gonna change anything. All it does is make money for that broad and her cronies.
I think she is more likely to share it with the Argentinian people than Wall Street is. That's why they re-elected her, she won by a landslide.
You just keep thinking that Arturo. I'm sure that it will mean the rebirth of that nation. Then they can take the Malvinas away from the U.K. And can bring the deserved glory that belongs to Latin America!
Argentina just wants to do the same things that America once did. Their constitution is based on ours, they have a lot of strong nationalist type people there. I lived there for a couple years.
I don't think it has to do with glory, they just want to bring their people out of poverty. But then again, I suppose there is a kind of glory to that.
Nationalism? A nationalist people? I thought you liberals thought nationalism is evil.
Who said anything about liberal? I'm a conservative democrat. So were FDR and JFK.
No such thing as a conservative democrat. Not in this day and age.
Sure there is, there is a whole organization for us:
http://larouchepac.com/
You'll probably just think its conspiracy theory though.
LAROUCHE? You can stop responding now. Go away.
This is my thread, you go away if you don't like it here.
You are right. You LaRouche people have been on this site from the beginning. Good luck with your stupid shit.
Good luck with your highly intellectual endeavors.
So they do that by trying to violently take away a land that wants to stay under the governance of another nation? Let them nationalize their oil industry. I'm. Sure it will work out for them as well as it did for Venezuela.
What violence? That war is long gone. Cristina said she would pursue the matter in court.
The Malvinas were originally Argentinian. The British were always the imperialists and still are.
Here is the alternative perspective:
British 'Persist with Colonialism' Still 30 Years After the Malvinas War http://larouchepac.com/node/22244
British See Malvinas, South Atlantic as Yet Another Potential War Zone http://larouchepac.com/node/21048
British Empire Targets Argentine President With Malvinas War Hysteria http://larouchepac.com/node/20933
British South Atlantic Militarization Threatens World Peace http://larouchepac.com/node/21484
So the people that inhabit those islands wanting to stay under Britain means nothing?
Those British people were put there by England after it took the islands by force. It was originally Argentinians living there.
Do you think the British, their banks and their queen, are any friends to America? There is a class of people in England who are still enemies to the US, and with every nation for that matter. Their enemy is the concept of the nation state.
Wall Street is the junior partner to the British financial oligarchy. We have to realize that we have to fight the same war that we fought in the American revolution.
They want to break down every nation and establish a global dictatorship. That's what every empire tries to do. Empires have been the primary power on this earth for the past 5-7 thousand year. We still have empires today, but they are financial empires.
very interesting
Glad you liked it.
Oh for christs sake go away you stupid fuck! Go ahead and cheer for yet another third world shithole.
I'm not the only one:
Speaking at a June 7 conference in Buenos Aires, former U.S. President Bill Clinton praised the government's economic policies applied over the past several years, and predicted that in the next fifty years, Argentina will likely "recover its place as a world leader." He recalled that in 1908, Argentina was the "eighth wealthiest economy in the world."
Sorry, but I think Bill Clinton speaks a little more intelligently about Argentina than you do.