CFK to start limping soon?

[nicoenarg]

Okay, sorry but it is really hard to read your posts and sometimes really hard to understand what you mean by what you write but anyway.

A couple of points need addressing.

That´s right, so If Government spends us$ 9.000.000.000 in fuel imports, and losses us$ 4.000.000.000 (exporting 5.000 m in energy), may be it´ll look for a better scenery.

Just so I understand you correctly. Do you mean to say that it is not in the interests of the government if they have to import more oil than export, resulting in a trade deficit?

If that is what you mean, I agree with you. Of course it looks bad. But it is a sign of a criminal government (and I am sorry to say, a criminal populace if they support the government in that) if it does not fix its own problems but finds an outsider to blame all their problems on them. And not only that but reneges on its deals with others to look better in the eyes of the populace. Seeing your comments, I am assuming you support the government move. Oil importation has increased, of course, but so has the consumption (one reason for increased imports) or should that not matter? Anyway, read the following article, it is pretty decent: http://www.economist.com/node/21553070

"You take it from ideological perspective, I´m talking about business and nothing about imperialism."

Oh no, I am talking about business. The "imperialism" part was a joke but I guess it didn't come across as such to you. So, I would like your answer to what I asked, would you be okay with a hostile take over from me of your house?

" don´t chop the hand that feeds you " tryng to say that in no way is needed to do what an employer or investor wants you to do. You don´t work only not to make angry to others.

Not sure what you meant by the last "make angry to others" bit, could you explain it?

Again, the "don't chop off the hand that feeds you" or "don't bite the hand that feeds you" are just expressions. You're mistaken if you take them literally. They don't mean slavery (we don't live in the 1800s and no one uses those two expressions to imply slavery). Anyway, since I don't really understand what you mean, I am not going to talk about the rest of your sentence above.

Ok. Not knowing if this YPF issue will run well, at present times, if this year profits (51 %) goes to argentine state,, they are us$ 600 M more in the cash register.

Yay? Let's not forget that that profit rightfully belongs to Repsol since it was their investment to begin with. So I can not show a lot of happiness in the government of Argentina stealing money (it makes ME look bad since I am a resident of Argentina ).

Related to investments, capital is coward but also, maybe mainly, greedy.

Okay, honestly, I don't get it. Capital is, uh, not a living thing(?). But if you mean Capitalists. Explain your statement please. Cowardice in this context makes just about zero sense. You even agreed with me that parties look out for themselves. I don't see cowardice in that since that is the understanding to begin with. But I might not be understanding what you're saying.

As for greed. If you keep what you earn, I can start calling you greedy too!

Since a month ago, when provinces take off exploiting zones from YPF, at least 20 oil companies were knocking at Governor´s doors lookink for a share of what Repsol was loosing.

Yeah, I am sure they are lining up left, right and center. That's beautiful. Even if that was true (even the Chinese company backed off after nationalization but we'll see) it doesn't make it any more right what the thieving government of CFK just did with YPF.

You have in mind , I think, only a private co. perspective. Obviously, Govt. is not a private actor and if it has the constitutional resourse to achieve goals in a more (in his own consideration) profitable or efficient way, why not ? Oh, I know. For not make angry ghost and potential investors. (I referred to this point a paragraph before).

Yes, hilarious. Anyway, no I do not have only private firms in mind. That is why I said, EVEN the government run organizations have to be profitable (I find that I am having to repeat myself a lot). As for the constitution here, we all know how respected that document is. How many times has it been revised again by the presidents of this country? Let's not pretend the congress here abides by the rules set out in the constitution (if their interests lie elsewhere). And let us also not pretend the presidents of Argentina do not abuse their executive powers.

As for not scaring away investors. It could have easily been avoided. At the risk of repeating myself (again!) I would say that if they had negotiated the takeover, things would have been different.

But, thugs remain thugs even in the most aweinspiring (black colored) apparel. That is why at times they are forced to say, "I am a President, not a thug!" ~ CFK.

 

[nicoenarg]

P.S.: Once and again I don´t get the quoting system.

Wrap every quote of mine in such quotes: "[q u o t e=gusgutier;160001][/q u o t e]" (remove the spaces for the word "quote" and also remove the ""). You will see that when you press the "quote" button, it automatically wraps my whole post in those quotes.

Alternatively, you can copy paste paragraphs from my post and then select them and click the "quote" button in the bar containing buttons for bold, italics, etc. Its the 4th button counting from right to left.

 

[gusgutier]

Okay, sorry but it is really hard to read your posts and sometimes really hard to understand what you mean by what you write but anyway.

A couple of points need addressing.



Just so I understand you correctly. Do you mean to say that it is not in the interests of the government if they have to import more oil than export, resulting in a trade deficit?

If that is what you mean, I agree with you. Of course it looks bad. But it is a sign of a criminal government (and I am sorry to say, a criminal populace if they support the government in that) if it does not fix its own problems but finds an outsider to blame all their problems on them. And not only that but reneges on its deals with others to look better in the eyes of the populace. Seeing your comments, I am assuming you support the government move. Oil importation has increased, of course, but so has the consumption (one reason for increased imports) or should that not matter? Anyway, read the following article, it is pretty decent: http://www.economist.com/node/21553070




Oh no, I am talking about business. The "imperialism" part was a joke but I guess it didn't come across as such to you. So, I would like your answer to what I asked, would you be okay with a hostile take over from me of your house?



Not sure what you meant by the last "make angry to others" bit, could you explain it?

Again, the "don't chop off the hand that feeds you" or "don't bite the hand that feeds you" are just expressions. You're mistaken if you take them literally. They don't mean slavery (we don't live in the 1800s and no one uses those two expressions to imply slavery). Anyway, since I don't really understand what you mean, I am not going to talk about the rest of your sentence above.



Yay? Let's not forget that that profit rightfully belongs to Repsol since it was their investment to begin with. So I can not show a lot of happiness in the government of Argentina stealing money (it makes ME look bad since I am a resident of Argentina ).



Okay, honestly, I don't get it. Capital is, uh, not a living thing(?). But if you mean Capitalists. Explain your statement please. Cowardice in this context makes just about zero sense. You even agreed with me that parties look out for themselves. I don't see cowardice in that since that is the understanding to begin with. But I might not be understanding what you're saying.

As for greed. If you keep what you earn, I can start calling you greedy too!



Yeah, I am sure they are lining up left, right and center. That's beautiful. Even if that was true (even the Chinese company backed off after nationalization but we'll see) it doesn't make it any more right what the thieving government of CFK just did with YPF.



Yes, hilarious. Anyway, no I do not have only private firms in mind. That is why I said, EVEN the government run organizations have to be profitable (I find that I am having to repeat myself a lot). As for the constitution here, we all know how respected that document is. How many times has it been revised again by the presidents of this country? Let's not pretend the congress here abides by the rules set out in the constitution (if their interests lie elsewhere). And let us also not pretend the presidents of Argentina do not abuse their executive powers.

As for not scaring away investors. It could have easily been avoided. At the risk of repeating myself (again!) I would say that if they had negotiated the takeover, things would have been different.

But, thugs remain thugs even in the most aweinspiring (black colored) apparel. That is why at times they are forced to say, "I am a President, not a thug!" ~ CFK.

I´ll try to answer in brief mode.
1) I agree that to deal with trade deficit on any a matter is a govt. responsability.
2)Govt choose between a hostile takeover and nacionalization, the second one because it has the resources and thought cheaper. I doubt about the secondary effects like EU punishmnet or nobody investing to be more expensive than benefits to reach.
It´s naive to see business from a moral point of view. It´s legal or not. And it is according to our laws (and similar to Spain & other many countrries laws). Naming thugs, thieves, etc, is irrelevant. There´s no moral or ethical issue here. Again, just money.
3) I understand the sayings referred (... the hand that feeds). And as a saying, denotes part of a supposed truth. I know what customers service is, but is not the case. The expression fails in refer a sense of equal rights according to a contract in a commercial relationship.
4)I prefer the word Capital because I think it is not about Soros or anyone else or belonging from a country or another. It´s a de subjectivy (this concept do exists?) of money related to cash flowing by traders and CEOs and no by owners.
5) I tried to mean " a perspective of how a private co. can absorve another" mindset. Public sector, having the tools, can apply other logic for the same goal.
6) I don´t support the govt, but I admit I vote her last election (what else can I do, did you see the others?) Since 1983 i voted : Alfonsin, Angeloz (both radical party), Bordon, De La Rua (don´t laugh), Nestor, Lavagna.
For me , just another govt.

 

[nicoenarg]

2)Govt choose between a hostile takeover and nacionalization, the second one because it has the resources and thought cheaper. I doubt about the secondary effects like EU punishmnet or nobody investing to be more expensive than benefits to reach.
It´s naive to see business from a moral point of view. It´s legal or not. And it is according to our laws (and similar to Spain & other many countrries laws). Naming thugs, thieves, etc, is irrelevant. There´s no moral or ethical issue here. Again, just money.

I think there seems to be a misunderstanding here. When I said "hostile takeover" that refers to the way the company was nationalized. You can nationalize a company by negotiating too.

As for the effects of sanctions by the EU, we will see about that. It is a fact that Argentina needs trade with the EU way more than the EU needs Argentina (China, for example, is way more important to the EU).

As for legality, this made me laugh, because when you're dealing with a foreign company, international law applies. Hence the reference to "thugs". It is illegal what Cristina did. Plain and simple.

Alright I am off to dinner now. I will come back on Monday or earlier if I get the time.

 

[Barron111]

Definitely an overly aggressive move

 

[arlean]

You guys are so funny. Nicoenarg I am laughing out loud. Three friends including Ahmadinejad, huh? Well I have a dumb question (I'm a woman--once blond--so I get to do that!!!) I am a small time investor Investors buy stocks in companies, YPF has investors.

What happens to the honest-to-goodness stockholders that have invested in good faith in this company in Argentina. If you tell me they will lose, then what will that do to Argentina insofar as outside investment is concerned. Will it not damage Argentina on the long term?

 

[wreReynolds]

There seems to be one key point that most seem to be missing. The government says that it must nationalize YPF becuase it isn´t investing enough in Argentina (almost $3.5 billion this year). However, the Argentine and provincial governments don´t have the cash to replace Repsol´s much deeper pockets.

RR

 

[willwright]

There seems to be one key point that most seem to be missing. The government says that it must nationalize YPF becuase it isn´t investing enough in Argentina (almost $3.5 billion this year). However, the Argentine and provincial governments don´t have the cash to replace Repsol´s much deeper pockets.

RR

It doesn't make since as the governments explanations of why they are doing are just a smokescreen for what the real purpose is. The real purpose is short-term gain for the government. Its about grabbing the cash box to keep their unsustainable economic policies going a bit longer and probably to divert some portion of oil revenues to their own pockets. Oil production will continue to fall but in the short run the revenues that were going for $3.5 in investments and dividends for shareholders will now flow directly to the local mafia know as the government. There is no long term plan beyond that.

 

[El chabon]

The best measure Spain could take is withdraw all visa's for Argentine citizen and send every Argentine back who travels to Barajas.

Sending illegal immigrants back to Argentina would be a good measure as well

Too bad both won't happen

 

[nicoenarg]

You guys are so funny. Nicoenarg I am laughing out loud. Three friends including Ahmadinejad, huh? Well I have a dumb question (I'm a woman--once blond--so I get to do that!!!) I am a small time investor Investors buy stocks in companies, YPF has investors.

What happens to the honest-to-goodness stockholders that have invested in good faith in this company in Argentina. If you tell me they will lose, then what will that do to Argentina insofar as outside investment is concerned. Will it not damage Argentina on the long term?

Well its not a dumb question and I would be lying if I said I can tell you for sure what will happen.

Usually smaller investors go with the flow of what the larges investors will do. Any sane big time investor would know, at least for the time being, to stay away from YPF and I would suggest that small time investors stay away from it too.

As another poster here mentioned, the government simply does not have the money to explore more gas/oil fields. They don't even have money to maintain the operations that they are going to have to run right now. It looks bad for Argentina and now Argentina has managed to isolate itself.

I'm wondering though, if you have money to invest and you want to invest in an up and coming market, why don't you look toward India or China (its maturing but still far from matured)? Investing right now in Argentina is more like investing in Cuba when they were beginning their "revolution" in the 50s.

BUT, like I said, I do not know all the details so take what I just said here with a whole lotta doubt.

PS: I know its not a direct answer to what you asked but things are bad for Argentina BECAUSE no big time investor will invest in YPF (unless Chavez, with his brokeass oil monopoly, pitches in). In fact, bigger investors might look at pulling out at the right time and going north (Brazil). So yes, that will be bad for small time investors. Its an indirect result of nationalization, something not intended, but it is part of the game.