This is nothing less than outright robbery!!!

I wonder what the impact will be on foreign direct investment in other Latin-American nations as a result of this move?

On the other hand, in a post-Kelo world, who are we to judge?

Yes, it is robbery. But the effect on FDI in LatAm will be negligible; note that money has been pouring back into Argentina for a few years now: from the private sector as well as supranationals such as World Bank and IMF, and who less worthy than Argentina?

There is plain ol' too much money circulating and investors are chasing yield. LatAm provides slightly better returns and that's where it goes. The "risk" part of the equation is for mere mortals to consider.

Was it Lenin who said that capitalists will sell you the rope you use to hang them? Hmmm...

The Bolivian people deserve all the economic hardship that will follow from this ultra-stupid decision. What a f****** morons. Let the socialists eat their own shite.

The really interesting thing is that Evo Morales came to power on a wave of indigenismo .

I should have clarified: the Bolivians deserve the hardship for electing this Morales clown. Because they *elected* him. No excuses about revolutions by minorities.

Bolivians (and other Latin American nations) seem to get screwed if they go the Privatize-and-attract-foreign-investment route or the Let's-nationalize-everything route. This is simply the pendulum swinging left after years of being right. Either way the money comes in.

Morales is no more a clown, nor their people more morons, than the country that can vote a Bush -- twice!!! -- into office.

Could this be replayed in peru and mexico after the upcoming elections in both counties? Stay tuned!

In the Peruvian runoff, the centrist Alan Garcia is likely to beat the fascist Ullanta. Hopefully, anyway. Garcia was president in the '80s and apparently spent all the money he stole so he coming back for more...

But more worrisome from the U.S.'s perspective is Mexico. Leftist (and buddies with Chavez and Castro) Lopez Obrador has a real chance to win. Imagine if he does: between Mexico and Venezuela the U.S. gets some 35% (may be wrong on that, but it's a significant percentage) of our oil. Imagine if they gang up on us and re-direct the oil to the likes of China.

Odder still is that there is little evidence that the U.S. is in some way helping the other two presidential candidates or at least trying to bury Lopez Obrador, and I fear the answer is that we've taken our eye off the ball because the administration has its hands full with the middle east.

The fear of Lopez-Obrador's socialist tendencies is misplaced: Mexico's oil industry already is owned by the government. Furthermore, all 3 candidates have expressed a committment to NAFTA and all are too practical to screw their largest trading partner. No, the real danger to Mexico's economy from "El Peje" is the powerful man behind the scenes: Carlos Slim. This guy is so self-centered, he would take the country straight to hell if he could make a few pesos off of it.

The implication of Mexico going hard left is profound. NAFTA, energy, immigration, drugs. Now that would be a great thread.

Those companies could try to pull something like Francisco d'Anconia. It would be appropriate.

In other news, as reported in the Bolivian press:

Salma Hayek no marchó junto a los latinos para no "crear desorden"

- La estrella de cine estadounidense de origen mexicano, Salma Hayek, secundó el boicot económico en favor de los derechos de los migrantes el 1 de mayo, pero no desfiló en Los Angeles por temor a causa desorden, según declaró a la emisora Televisa.

"Me di cuenta que la mejor manera de ayudar era no marchar, a lo mejor (al marchar) creaba desorden, una nunca sabe", explicó la bella veracruzana, en una entrevista difunda este martes por Televisa.

Las imágenes de los históricos desfiles de cientos de miles de migrantes a lo largo y ancho de Estados Unidos fue algo "importante, histórico", explicó Hayek vía telefónica.
"Sentí una gran emoción, sentí que por primera vez nuestra voz era escuchada, estábamos todos unidos, además de latinos, asiáticos, árabes", explicó.

A pesar de que no desfiló, Hayek había hecho campaña por el boicot inmigrante, y aseguró que a partir de ahora está dispuesta incluso a llamar a senadores para cabildear en el Congreso de Estados Unidos.
"El hecho de que tenga acceso directo a muchos de esos senadores creo que es la mejor manera de participar", dijo.

The last polls give Felipe Calderon, the candidate of the PAN, a slight advantage over Lopez Obrador, and so do the electoral electronic markets (like tradesports.com). All that previous to the debate that Lopez Obrador didn't attend where Calderon was the "winner" according to phone surveys aftew the debate and political analysts. It is way to close to call.
And since the 1930's at least oil and electricity are state owned constitutionally. A change to the left would not change that status quo. When Calderon was Secretary of Energy he tried to privatize the sector (but approving such reforms without majority in Congress and the opposition of both PRI and PRD is obviously almost impossible). It would be good to have those reforms in the next "sexenio" but even if Lopez Obrador wins the effect for FDI in energy, etc. will not be as catastrophic as some expect. Besides, as was already mentioned, all Mexican candidadates have express they will support NAFTA. As someone else said, why upset your main trading partners?

How did these oil and gas fields come to be owned by foreigners in the first place ? Did they do so legally and legimiately or did they do so by bribery and the like ?

Incidentally, the companies can probably try and bring cases against Bolivia abroad against assets held abroad.

The international company that got screwed the most was the brazilian Petrobras. And it got the gas fields through the agreements and investments that resulted on the bolivia-Brazil gas pipe (some 30 million cubic meters of gas per day, I think).

I almost wish that the brazilian airforce would bomb petrobras's instalations on Bolivia, just to have the last laugh (and yes, I am brazilian, the new imperialist pigs of south-america).

"Besides, as was already mentioned, all Mexican candidates have expressed they will support NAFTA. As someone else said, why upset your main trading partners?" - NR

On the one hand, NAFTA has been berybery gud for Mexico and I'd be surprised if Lopez Obregon as President would even try to chuck it. Mexico is now investment grade and a diversified and strong economy. And this is revealing as well: A few months ago Mexico's Fox and Venezuela's Chavez got into a typical Latin macho argument, with threats to withdraw ambassadors and such. But after a couple days Fox simply walked away from it, thus showing uncommon maturity. My point is that Mexico is now a "real" country and is unlikely to backtrack.

On the other hand, Venezuela is upsetting its main trading partner, as is China (the U.S. in both cases). Rules and alliances are shifting and it is hard to figure out how it will all play out in the end.

In this day and age, Francisco D'Anconia's response (or Wyatt's, considering that the product is fuel) is obsolete. Just reformat every hard drive, shred every manual, and leave.

Re: Dan's Update.

(Yawn) Everyone threatened Argentina with much punishment, too, after screwing investors, and called them all kinds of foul names. They went ahead and did as they pleased.

So how much is Argentina suffering now? Last weekend at a party I met the person who runs the Argentine subsidiary of a major U.S. airline. In brief, the planes have never been fuller coming here (businessmen plus tourists), and Argentina is one of few countries in which this airline is making money.

So: same will occur with Bolivia, mas o menos.

One more thing: keep an eye out for news of how global banks will begin shifting loans from the private sector of Bolivia ("Exxon de Bolivia" and such) to sovereign loans to Bolivia itself.

Bank Credit Department decision process: Was Morales democratically elected? Check. Is Bolivia now sitting on a wealth of gas, whose cashflow can guarantee the loans us bankers make? Check. Can we charge fees to structure the loans then sell them off to investors hungry for a good story and yield? Check.

Wall Street bankers are already buying plane tickets to La Paz.

I think they made a movie about Mexico going hard left. Wolverines!

"Outright robbery"! That is beyond satire- who gives Northern corps the right endlessly to extract the profits from Bolivian resources?

Of course, the logic of capitalism; they built the plant, so should derive benefits forever; who brought capitalism to Bolivia, by force? Who benefits from it now? Who sets the rules, who loads the dice, who always wins?

This is a move to applaud for anyone who supports the rights and interests of people over and above those of capital. Hey Exxon is rich enough already, don't cry for me TotalFina. If Bolivia's going to be locked into capitalism and into global markets by the imperial finance institutions, such as the IMF (incidentally they're challenging that too), let them earn some income, from their wealth, to have a chance of getting back onto even keel - of course as Keynes foresaw, this chance is illusory- terms of trade, trade balances, currency and debt interact to cause the latter to spiral. Leaving developing countries conveniently locked into a dependency they service by yielding their natural and human wealth to northern ownership - oh, we're back where we started.

Anyone on here not an apologist for corporate-led imperialism and proponent of its supporting ideologies? See beyond the hawkonomix, people.

It should be noted that Morales has signed on to an economic agreement with Chavez and Castro over the weekend.

Appalled Moderate - great news!

Sorry, my post was mainly addressed to trade monkey and haha at the top, without meaning to be combative about it - having reread the thread tho, there's some thoughtful points made, so I retract my more partisan rhetoric.

Glad to make you happy, Cunning. Hope the folks in Bolivia benefit. Problem with these oil countries is the leadership manages to bribe the poor without doing much about inequality or investing in a balanced economy.

For much coverage of the issue in English (from a right wing but hispanic perspective, see here).

http://aruiznavajas.blogspot.com/

"... don't cry for me TotalFina" -- cunningfox

Now that's the catchiest phrase I've read in a while; if you don't mind I'll use it elsewhere.

But your premise is wrong on Bolivia, cunning.

Mind you I generally support Latin America, not because they're more often right, but rather because no one ever looks at the other side of the coin: the role of the northern bankers and investors creating the problem in the first place. (Like you suggest, some of the early posters here haven't a clue what the issues are.)

But if Bolivia and (say) Exxon signed a legally binding agreement allowing Exxon to extract oil in exchange for investment and creating jobs and tax revenues -- hopefully Bolivia negotiated some of all that -- then Bolivia does have a legal obligation to keep the agreement. Certainly the way Morales is going about the nationalization isn't fair, either, no?

no one ever looks at the other side of the coin: the role of the northern bankers and investors creating the problem in the first place.

Giggle. Snort. People look at that side all the time. There is no shortage of people blaming the North Americans for all their woes.

Creating the problem? One does not have to "create the problem" of poverty. It is extremely easy to create poverty. If the northern bankers and investors were not there at all, there would still be poverty.

Did the Americans cause the War of the Triple Alliance, which devastated Paraguay? The War of the Pacific? The idiotic Chaco War? Is it the Americans' fault that Argentina went from being one of the wealthiest countries in the world from 1900 to 1930 to poor thanks to Peron, while Europe and the US were able to recover?

Bah, it is those ignorant of the history of Latin America who believe or can be made to believe that it is all the fault of the North Americans. If the North Americans were not there at all, Latin America would be poorer. The US would like nothing better for all of South America to be as wealthy as Chile.

That's the problem with these postings: you try to be succinct and then get misunderstood.

John Thacker, when I said that northerners create the problem in LatAm I wasn't referring to poverty but rather crisis. No argument the region was and remains poor. But -- whew! -- we're lucky you chose those wars as examples and not anything like events such as the murders of Chile's Allende, Ecuador's Roldos, Panama's Torrijos or Guatemala's Arbenz. No: us northerns are innocent and damn those estupidos latinoamericanos for doubting our intentions.

I am a native U.S. citizen that grew up living under General Peron and then the military juntas, spent many a year living in Mexico under Salinas de Gortari and then Zedillo. But best of all I now live under Kirchner in Argentina again. Do not suggest I am ignorant of Latin American history.

Along the way I've seen not a few economic snap crackle & pops in the region. So: if the U.S. or northerners had never set foot in LatAm, it would still be poor, but I betcha happier and with many fewer crises. Bah and snort back atcha.

Well that sure comes across as pissy. Apologies to all.

If we agree that Morales and Chávez are part of the same "bolivarian" movement, here is an update of their achievements so far:

1- Chávez and Morales have imploded the Andean free-trade community by denouncing Peru and Colombia for making trade agreements with the US.

2- Morales has dropped a bomb on Mercosur's lap, which may very well cause a large-scale, maybe final, crisis in the trade bloc. At a moment when Uruguay and Paraguay are expressing their doubts about membership, anything that makes Brazil skeptic about regional integration (and this certainly will) spells trouble for the bloc.

To sum up: "Bolivarianismo" has, so far, helped to implode the only two possible alternatives to an US-dominated FTAA.

3- Morales has provided a much-needed boost to right-wing candidates across the continent. Humala and Obrador will suffer. Alckmin, the ailing right-wing candidate in Brazil, may also profit, not because Lula is seen as similarly populist, but because Brazil took a big hit from Morales's decision (though Alckmin may be too far behind to stage a comeback).

If Chávez and Morales are serious about their "leftist internationalism", they must admit they have been a little less than successful.

Saying that Alckimin is the brazilian's right candidate and Lula is the left is like splitting hairs to me. Both (well, at least Alckimin's party) follow the same macroeconomic model, as the last 3 and a half years have show. Aside that, I agree with what Celso said.

The US would like nothing better for all of South America to be as wealthy as Chile.

Indeed. If people in SouthAm were richer, we could sell them more Stuff™.

---

So: if the U.S. or northerners had never set foot in LatAm, it would still be poor, but I betcha happier and with many fewer crises. Bah and snort back atcha.

ROFL!

Tell me, do you also think that it would be all peace, love, and muslim brotherhood in the Middle East if the Israelis had set up shop somewhere else- say, Taiwan?

I've never seen the acronym "ROFL!" before, so I'll go on the assumption that it stands for "Really Observant Fellow this Latin!". Thanks rosignol; your kind heart shines through.

And nope, I claim no insider knowledge of muslims.

@St. James the Lesser:

"No: us northerns are innocent and damn those estupidos latinoamericanos for doubting our intentions."

I have not read a single thing which would lead me to believe that estupidos nortamericanos have any compelling interest in this little conflict. Brazil is a semi-friendly neutral to the US, although I'm not certain what Brazil's relationehip to Canada or Mexico is like.

As for Spain, the major aggrieved party in this confiscation? It probably hasn't escaped your attention that President Bush and Prime Minister Zapatero are not quite best friends. In fact they have apparently not talked privately either personally or on the telephone. So when this happened Bush probably had a makeup artist in to remove the smirk from his face.

I can't speak for Canada or Mexico but my best guess is that were Zapatero to ask for US help Bush would point to Iraq and say 'Sorry: All tied up. Suggest you talk with Chirac.'

ROFL stands for 'Rolling on the floor laughing', BTW. BTW, BTW stand for 'By the Way'.

@St. James

But best of all I now live under Kirchner in Argentina again.

So how are the beef prices these days?

Kirchner (the Argie Prez) is goin' to town trying to stop inflation and seems to have forgotten it's tied to the money supply. So he has imposed price freezes on beef (because in Argentina absolutely everyone eats steak)

But guess what happens? It is becoming increasingly hard to find good quality beef these days, because for the same price the butcher now sells you a lower quality of meat. And more of the good stuff gets sold to the gringos up north. Bon apetit.

And more of the good stuff gets sold to the gringos up north. Bon apetit.

Why, thank you- I'm quite happy to do my bit to help out the Argentine economy. Where might I find some of these primo steaks?

Dunno. But whatever you do don't frequent those "Brazilian Gaucho" all-you-can-eat restaurants: damn Brazilians have stolen the Argentine gaucho concept and made it their own.

It's painful to be outmaneuvered and outmarketed.

In an historic perspective, Bolivia has never paid back its debts, and it has never respected the contracts it signed. The English used to send warships to collect debts and protect their citizens. That was when the Empire was young and energetic.

Except to Bolivia, which has no sea outlets.

@St James,

So he has imposed price freezes on beef (because in Argentina absolutely everyone eats steak)

I thought Kirchner had embargoed all beef exports in an effort to keep prices down at home, which is why I asked that snide question about beef prices.

But guess what happens? It is becoming increasingly hard to find good quality beef these days, because for the same price the butcher now sells you a lower quality of meat.

No shit?!!! Who ever would have expected that?!!!!

And more of the good stuff gets sold to the gringos up north. Bon apetit.

When I was last in Amsterdam one of the most striking things were all of the Argentinian Beef restaurants. You see them in Germany and France also in a big way, and I saw some in Madrid. It's a premium brand. So when I heard about the embago I wondered what would happen.

But whatever you do don't frequent those "Brazilian Gaucho" all-you-can-eat restaurants: damn Brazilians have stolen the Argentine gaucho concept and made it their own.

Perhaps all that high quality beef no longer available in Argentina is converting itself into Brazilian beef? Whether live on the hoof or in steak form it's unlikely to tell anyone where it came from! ;)

Dunno. But whatever you do don't frequent those "Brazilian Gaucho" all-you-can-eat restaurants: damn Brazilians have stolen the Argentine gaucho concept and made it their own.

Thank you, St. James. I'll keep that in mind next time I'm in Nederlands or Germany. They have them in Paris too but in Paris I would never waste my meals on such places.

Brazilian Gauchos featuring (shhhh) Argentinian beef. Oops, Brazilian beef. The Beef which Dare Not speak It's Name. At least for as long as President Kirchner is in office.,,,,,