Another "brilliant" pro business move by decree [again]

[ghost]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Argentina-claims-more-apf-1941488824.html?x=0&.v=1

 

[marksoc]

The AFJPs (private "obligatory" pension funds) owned shares of companies, the government dissolved the AFJPs and the shares are now owned by the State, the State is asking to have a say in companies where it has a stake. That´s it.

The AFJPs were some of the most disgraceful companies ever to exist, it was worse than a Ponzi scheme (only those on the top won something). The rest, is another anti-government post by Ghost.

 

[notebook.fix]

marcsoc put a sock in it
This stupid move by the K regime is indefensible in any language, verging on communism. While the rest of the region is bending over backwards trying to encourage to draw foreign investment the K regime is terrorizing & scaring it away.

You're the one who is always sarcastic, calling employers "Capitalists".

Remember that wall in Germany? it was there to keep people from escaping communism... you'd have to a business retard to invest with this wacky government... for god's sake we don't want to be turned into a Nicaragua or Venezuela.

Watch what happens next... El Campo mark II

 

[marksoc]

You're the one who is always sarcastic, calling employers "Capitalists".

In fact you are right,since cooperatives, NGOs and the State are also employers. If you own a company and hire workers (people that work), you are a capitalist. That is the definition, not sarcasm. Capitalist are employers, but not all employers are capitalists. Capitalist is a person that arranges the payment of a wage to another person in exchange for his/her work generally for (long) periods of time in exclusivity. It his called in this way because the capitalist owns the capital invested in this work and has the right to receive profits derived from this work one all wages and costs are discounted.

And like it or not, our choice for this century seems to be between democratic socialism or authoritarian one (coops-northern Europe vs China), not between capitalism and socialism. Now if you feel that the State owning some percentages in some companies is close to communism, you are for a surprise in the next years.

 

[Napoleon]

It's bad enough that the government is moving into businesses that they stole stock of, but it's even worse that they are doing it as a result of Presidential Decree.

Venezuela II: The Sequel

 

[notebook.fix]

In fact you are right,since cooperatives, NGOs and the State are also employers. If you own a company and hire workers (people that work), you are a capitalist. That is the definition, not sarcasm. Capitalist are employers, but not all employers are capitalists. Capitalist is a person that arranges the payment of a wage to another person in exchange for his/her work generally for (long) periods of time in exclusivity. It his called in this way because the capitalist owns the capital invested in this work and has the right to receive profits derived from this work one all wages and costs are discounted.

And like it or not, our choice for this century seems to be between democratic socialism or authoritarian one (coops-northern Europe vs China), not between capitalism and socialism. Now if you feel that the State owning some percentages in some companies is close to communism, you are for a surprise in the next years.

capitalist [ˈkæpɪtəlɪst]
n
1. (Economics) a person who owns capital, esp capital invested in a business
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Politics a supporter of capitalism
3. Informal, usually derogatory towards a rich person

When marcsoc uses the term capitalist, you can bet it's meant as a derogatory put down towards ALL employers.

COMMUNISM is COMMUNISM. Punto.

DO you want me to collect all your "All Capitalists are EVIL" style quotes & paste them here for all to see?? Don't try to hide your Kommunist tendencies now...come out of the Kloset plllleeeeease.

WHen a Government puts it's greedy hands into the private company, industry RUNS AWAY! it is literally planting the seeds of misery & poverty for the children of this country. ..Get it?

(((No one wants to invest in countries that attack industry)))

EDIT: And this horror movie gets worse!...lurking in the background & watering at the mouth.. MOYANO has his eyes set on the vice presidency....YEY!! & he PLANS to stick his mafia thugs into each and every one of these company's directorships!!! Hooray!! What? Knock knock! ANyone there?? Union thugs taking part in the day to day business decisions? WHAT THE??....? Are they going to help to make these companies more competitive???...is that the Big plan?? .. Krikey!! Pinch me! I must be having a nightmare!

 

[ghost]

pension funds will own corporate stocks/shares as a passive investor in order to increase the value of the fund for the benefit of the contributors. However gaining board seats and eventually board control via government thugs IE Moyano etc. will defeat the purpose of the funds investment. This is another power play "by decree" and it is transparent as all hell to any corporation looking to Argentina for potential growth/investment.
Sider for example, was already nationalized in Hugoland in much the same fashion. Now Sidar is in Xtinas cross hairs, as are several "enemy" corporations.
Corporate control by Presidential decree demonstrates malintent.
This action will not work in favor of any of the invested parties.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

pension funds will own corporate stocks/shares as a passive investor in order to increase the value of the fund for the benefit of the contributors. However gaining board seats and eventually board control via government thugs IE Moyano etc. will defeat the purpose of the funds investment. This is another power play "by decree" and it is transparent as all hell to any corporation looking to Argentina for potential growth/investment.
Sider for example, was already nationalized in Hugoland in much the same fashion. Now Sidar is in Xtinas cross hairs, as are several "enemy" corporations.
Corporate control by Presidential decree demonstrates malintent.
This action will not work in favor of any of the invested parties.

The situation in Venezuela was different, Chavez just nationalized the companies, here the stocks were bought. And if you have enough stocks, you should have the right to participate in the board decision making. Otherwise, they draw the numbers.
Regards

 

[Napoleon]

The situation in Venezuela was different, Chavez just nationalized the companies, here the stocks were bought*. And if you have enough stocks, you should have the right to participate in the board decision making. Otherwise, they draw the numbers.
Regards

Actually... it's the same as Venezuela, but with one more step.

Venezuela:
Step 1 Nationalize the companies.

Argentina:
Step 1 Nationalize the PRIVATE retirement accounts.
Step 2 Install your people on the board.

You could argue that Hugo was just more efficient.

*The stocks were "bought", but not by the government.

 

[marksoc]

the PRIVATE retirement accounts

Meaning that those funds pertained to future pensioneers. Like now. The State pertain to us, so now we are owners of parts of big companies. The difference is that we can vote which people administer the State, but we could not vote which people owned the AFJPs (and change from one to another was not an easy process, and anyway competition was not existant). So now the State (us) can decide if some paths chosen by the Board of Directors of some very big companies in OUR country are against us or not, and change it according to the interest of all of us. Yep, I am a commie.