Look at this picture and THE Queen is screaming about poverty????

[Gringoboy]

You got there first mate!
That line stood out like dogs b***ocks.

 

[Fettucini]

I liked the responses of Finthorpe in the comments section of the article, especially this -
"Despite the fact that over 95% of argentines are the direct descendants of white Europeans brought in from Europe and intentionally implanted onto land recently stolen from the natives, they still feel the need to engage in self pitying whining about how "unfair" the fact the Islanders are given the same human rights (to self determination) they have."

 

[LostinBA]

If the Argentinians want the Falklands/Malvinas, shouldn't they be ready to concede all of the lands taken from the various Indigenous tribes that national heros like General Julio Roca slaughtered or relocated to desolation and abject poverty?

 

[scotttswan]

I missed out quite a few too. such as Easter Island - Chile

 

[LostinBA]

My esteemed colleagues, sirs, and madams. If you are going to debate issues you need to learn to seperate them and not collude them in your arguments.

First, I didn't say the article was a great article, nor even factually accurate. I said I agreed with the author's stance on a solution. The Falklands / Malvinas and Gibralter are the last two colonized areas in the world. Britain and Spain found a workable agreement on Gibralter, which is strategically much more important to both countries than the Falklands.

Second, I'll clarify my statment on the willingness to talk. Neither Britain nor Argentina are currently willing to enter into diplomatic talks for a solution. Both have legal rights to the islands, but neither is willing to negotiate -the only viable option for a solution. If Christina really wanted the islands she'd be sending food and tourists, not cutting off supply lines.

Third, your perception of their ability to run the oil and gas production has nothing to do with good macroeconomic policy. Whether they can, or can't, is a seperate issue from the economic reality that a country's resources belong to the country and they should benefit from them. The PSA with YPF was a non-starter. Repsol didn't invest anywhere near enough in Argentina as they were busy exploring other areas of the world.

Fourth, that the government is corrupt is a seperate issue from the fact that they have the right, and responsibility to the people of the country to maximize the value of their resources.

Lastly, yes she's an effective and smart politician. You may not like her or agree with her but she's got an astounding approval rating from the Argetine people. Don't know where you blokes are from, but that's never the case where I'm from. Typically 1/2 of our population is at odds with the elected President.

The PSA with Repsol was a non-starter because the geniuses in this government were taxing revenues above $42/barrel at 100%. By setting this cap, they killed any investment by YPF. When you're forced to maintain many more staff than you require, deal with horrible unions and a hostile employment environment like you have in this country, subjected to double or even triple the costs on all your equipment due to importation taxes, duties and corruption ever-increasing your exploration/production costs and lowering your profit margin because you're limited to $42/bbl when the market is $100+/bbl, why would you invest anything? This was a setup for years by this gov't to steal this company. This has nothing to do this self-determination or national interests and everything to do with conniving, greedy corrupt politicians who wrap themselves in the flag to fool alot of really gullible people.

 

[LostinBA]

really?

Australian Territories.

• Ashmore and Cartier Islands
• Christmas Island
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Coral Sea Islands
• Heard Island and McDonald Islands
• Norfolk Island

Danish Territories

• Faroe Islands
• Greenland

Dutch Territories

• Aruba
• Netherlands Antilles

French Territories

• Bassas da India
• Clipperton Island
• Europa Island
• French Guiana
• French Polynesia
• French Southern and Antarctic Lands
• Glorioso Islands
• Guadeloupe
• Juan de Nova Island
• Martinique
• Mayotte
• New Caledonia
• Réunion
• Saint Pierre and Miquelon
• Tromelin Island
• Wallis and Futuna

New Zealand Territories

• Cook Islands
• Niue
• Tokelau

Norwegian Territories

• Bouvet Island
• Jan Mayen
• Svalbard

UK Territories

• Anguilla
• Bermuda
• British Indian Ocean Territory
• British Virgin Islands
• Cayman Islands
• Falkland Islands
• Gibraltar
• Guernsey
• Jersey
• Isle of Man
• Montserrat
• Pitcairn Islands
• Saint Helena
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
• Turks and Caicos Islands

US Territories

• American Samoa
• Baker Island
• Guam
• Howland Island
• Jarvis Island
• Johnston Atoll
• Kingman Reef
• Midway Islands
• Navassa Island
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Palmyra Atoll
• Puerto Rico
• Virgin Islands
• Wake Island

​

​

​

This is fodder for a great drinking game.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

Sorry, I meant to write "contested colonies." I believe Gibralter and Falklands / Malvinas are the last. The point I was making is that Spain and UK found a workable agreement with Gibralter, a highly strategic area. Argentina and UK refuse to.

 

[LandLord]

Haha... allwise with the self determination crap.. Argentina IS NOT interested in the determination of the islanders!! they could be Pygmies if they want. Argentina its only interested in the stolen territory. Thats why we are talking about a deal between both goverments, because we want our rights on the islands back no matter what the islanders decide to do with their lifes. Anyway the islanders should take into account that the uk goverment doesnt really cares about them how they apparently show. They are only using the islander as an excuse just for avoid have to deal with Argentine goverment. Any blind could see this.

 

[ElQueso]

...Third, your perception of their ability to run the oil and gas production has nothing to do with good macroeconomic policy. Whether they can, or can't, is a seperate issue from the economic reality that a country's resources belong to the country and they should benefit from them. The PSA with YPF was a non-starter. Repsol didn't invest anywhere near enough in Argentina as they were busy exploring other areas of the world.

My understanding is that the main reason YPF and other oil companies are not producing the fields upon which they have leases are the price controls enacted by said government. I mean geez - 100% tax on anything sold over $40 a barrel? Why should companies invest heavily in Argentina oil with restrictions that are placed on them? The Argentine government has managed to make oil exploration and production non-profitable to a large extent within this country.

So fine, Cristina has decided to nationalize an oil company via government theft.

It takes experience and large sums of money to explore for oil and produce wells. Argentina doesn't have any of one and not much of the other. She hasn't fixed anything with this move, and indeed may have made things worse. I can't see how they will actually see any benefits of what they will have nationalized and I am willing to bet they will not see an increase in the short term, and possibly a decrease in the long term.

So I don't see how this can help things on any macroeconomic scale.

Fourth, that the government is corrupt is a seperate issue from the fact that they have the right, and responsibility to the people of the country to maximize the value of their resources.

Under the rule of international law, a country doesn't have the right to do whatever they want just because it benefits them. That's no better than saying Joe Blow down the street has the right to steal a car that's parked in his parking space that he owns because he doesn't have a car.

In fact, Argentina and other countries are so against colonialism - what is government appropriation of companies than its evil opposite? And how does having an apparatus that you don't have enough experience or money to operate allow you to maximize your resources? It's easy for them to justify to their own people something like this because look who's involved - a former colonial power. Let's get some revenge!

Having worked in the oilfield as a software developer who wrote software to analyze data to figure out how best to exploit wells and make sure you're getting the most oil out for the least investment, I can tell you that it's a complicated business best left to the pros.

If Argentina wants to fix their problem with oil production, there are much better ways to do it than just force a takeover of a company because they figure it suits their purpose. Particularly when that move will have even further implications in the future related to much-needed investment capital throughout the economy and their move is unlikely to have a positive impact.

Lastly, yes she's an effective and smart politician. You may not like her or agree with her but she's got an astounding approval rating from the Argetine people. Don't know where you blokes are from, but that's never the case where I'm from. Typically 1/2 of our population is at odds with the elected President.

I doubt more than half of the country you're from are made up of ignorant, poor people who really have zero idea of economics on any scale. Most of the people who are "for" Cristina are poor, un- or under-educated people, or hard core Peronistas who are ready to see their party win, with force if necessary.

Most people who I know here, who are educated, overwhelmingly can't stand her. Unfortunately, they are in the minority and can't be bought with a few hundred pesos here and there.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

I doubt more than half of the country you're from are made up of ignorant, poor people who really have zero idea of economics on any scale.

I'm not so sure about that.

I agree with a lot of what you've said:
Do I like her and her policies? No. Look at what Peron did to the country.
Can the educated people see through this charade? Yes.
Do the educated people elect the President? No.
Is this going to be an economic train-wreck? Most probably.
Did they "subsidize" through taxing of production? Yes (however, there are other company's operating here, like Exxon and BP, yes?)
Are they going to do the hard work, like tackle reforms, before the wreck? No.
Do they have the know-how to run an oil exploration and refinement industry? No.
Is nationlization an easy way to gain revenues for a country on the brink of economic collapse? Yes

However, with the size of the shale reserves here I think companies are still going to line up to get in. So far, I think the risk will be worth it (Depending on how far/fast other nationlizations go).

One thing I don't quite get is your point on nationalization under international law. I don't think you example of the car on the street applies. My understanding all the way back to graduate Macro-Econ and International Poli Sci is that, under international law, country's do have a legal right to do this. There are numerous cases. Can you cite me sources that say otherwise? I'd be interested in reading those.