Why dose Mexico have a border fence?
Ok come on now. I know the basics of this but why do it? With the way the world is today its hard to find Homes,Jobs, and hard to make money. So why worry about people coming to the US and then saying "hey. I make no money and I don"t have a home" I guess mexico is a better place.
Current Events - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
just something to waste more tax payer dollars.
2 :
The fence is to keep people OUT, not in. Because if you look at the problem, nobody is jumping the fence TO Mexico, they're all jumping IN.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Do we have1.4 billion to waste to help Mexico battle violent drug gangs, but the money will be largely ?
Do we have1.4 billion to waste to help Mexico battle violent drug gangs, but the money will be largely ?
The U.S. government is vowing to spend $1.4 billion to help Mexico battle violent drug gangs, but the money will be largely wasted if authorities here don't cut the ties between police forces and organized crime, security analysts say. U.S. and Mexican officials on Monday announced the so-called "Merida Initiative," which U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza described as "the single most aggressive undertaking ever to combat Mexican drug cartels." The plan's success, however, may hinge on whether it includes an effective strategy to tackle the corruption that has corroded large parts of Mexico's local and federal police forces. If it does not, Mexico will simply go from having "a corrupt and badly equipped police force to a corrupt and well-equipped police force," said Jorge Chabat, a Mexican national security analyst and drug expert. The latest example of how deep-pocketed drug traffickers have warped local law enforcement came earlier this month when agents detained 25 federal police officers in the northern border state of Tamaulipas on suspicion of providing protection for the Gulf drug cartel. Erubiel Tirado, a national security and diplomacy expert at Mexico City's Iberoamericana University, said the Merida plan's emphasis on equipment and training of Mexican forces sends a clear message. "There's no confidence in our institutional infrastructure, which is precisely the origin of the crisis we're going through," he said. President Bush asked Congress on Monday to approve funding for the plan's first $500 million installment. If approved, it would make Mexico the second biggest recipient of U.S. security and anti-drug aid after Colombia, which has received $5 billion under Plan Colombia. Critics of the new plan have dubbed it "Plan Mexico." Unlike the Colombia initiative, though, the Mexico proposal does not involve putting U.S. troops on Mexican soil. Instead, it would pay for such things as helicopters and surveillance aircraft, "nonintrusive inspection equipment" and drug-sniffing dogs. Mexican opposition politicians have nevertheless raised concerns that it would violate Mexican sovereignty and pledged to oppose Mexico's plan to spend $7 billion over three years to the fight against organized crime. Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa was to appear before the Senate later Wednesday to provide lawmakers with details on the initiative.http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/279143.html
Immigration - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yes, the US government can waste a billion here or there and hardly notice.
2 :
Once again we will be lining the pockets of both the Mexican government and the drug cartels being they are in bed together
3 :
When we are wasting trillions of dollars on the Iraq War, 1.4 billion to Mexico doesn't seem like a whole lot.
4 :
Of course it is a bad Idea, but we are talking about a country that has been fighting a war on drugs for 30 years. And losing.
5 :
well this present govt has a soft heart for mexico they will do anything to support them as long as this present US govt is in the power
6 :
Mexico should spend the 7 billion to improve conditions in their country first.
7 :
Isn't it about time that Mexico took responsibility for their corrupt society and did something to change it themselves. Since we are sending all of their absconders back, perhaps they will learn to survive without all of our money going to these idiots! I'm so sick of the illegals and their hostile attitudes, I don't really care about Mexico at all. I'm not going to vacation in that rat hole and I have no family there. Help yourselves for once, that's how the drug cartels became so powerful, they helped themselves. So many public officials had their hands out to them, they have exactly what they asked for.
8 :
God damn it!!! I'm tired of money going to help everyone but the ACTUAL CITIZENS!!!
9 :
That money would be better spent here on ICE agents, Border Patrolmen,and a fence made in America.
10 :
Most of you think Mexico is the only responsible for this drug wars. Well, here's a thought... .if drugs werent as widely bought in the US there would be no need for drug cartels to exist.... who would they sell the drugs to???? poor mexicans? they cant afford it.... rich mexicans??? it's not that many of us to make that kind of business out of it. Its like what happens with fur coats... one would need to cut back demand to deal with the problem So yes... drug wars are our problem as mexicans and believe me... we are very very aggraviated by them, but please dont act like they are just a product of mexican corruption... because they are also a product of american consumption. And given that we cannot afford to fight this war with our own resources, it is under your best interest to help Mexico (disregarding any responsibility you might have on the matter) if you want to keep drugs away from your children. So no, I dont think you are throwing that money away... and I dont think that your government would do it just to help Mexico,,, I think good things could come out of this for both countries, but you manage to think that we are enemies and that we do not deserve your attention instead of acknowledging that we need to be in this together.
The U.S. government is vowing to spend $1.4 billion to help Mexico battle violent drug gangs, but the money will be largely wasted if authorities here don't cut the ties between police forces and organized crime, security analysts say. U.S. and Mexican officials on Monday announced the so-called "Merida Initiative," which U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza described as "the single most aggressive undertaking ever to combat Mexican drug cartels." The plan's success, however, may hinge on whether it includes an effective strategy to tackle the corruption that has corroded large parts of Mexico's local and federal police forces. If it does not, Mexico will simply go from having "a corrupt and badly equipped police force to a corrupt and well-equipped police force," said Jorge Chabat, a Mexican national security analyst and drug expert. The latest example of how deep-pocketed drug traffickers have warped local law enforcement came earlier this month when agents detained 25 federal police officers in the northern border state of Tamaulipas on suspicion of providing protection for the Gulf drug cartel. Erubiel Tirado, a national security and diplomacy expert at Mexico City's Iberoamericana University, said the Merida plan's emphasis on equipment and training of Mexican forces sends a clear message. "There's no confidence in our institutional infrastructure, which is precisely the origin of the crisis we're going through," he said. President Bush asked Congress on Monday to approve funding for the plan's first $500 million installment. If approved, it would make Mexico the second biggest recipient of U.S. security and anti-drug aid after Colombia, which has received $5 billion under Plan Colombia. Critics of the new plan have dubbed it "Plan Mexico." Unlike the Colombia initiative, though, the Mexico proposal does not involve putting U.S. troops on Mexican soil. Instead, it would pay for such things as helicopters and surveillance aircraft, "nonintrusive inspection equipment" and drug-sniffing dogs. Mexican opposition politicians have nevertheless raised concerns that it would violate Mexican sovereignty and pledged to oppose Mexico's plan to spend $7 billion over three years to the fight against organized crime. Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa was to appear before the Senate later Wednesday to provide lawmakers with details on the initiative.http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/279143.html
Immigration - 10 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yes, the US government can waste a billion here or there and hardly notice.
2 :
Once again we will be lining the pockets of both the Mexican government and the drug cartels being they are in bed together
3 :
When we are wasting trillions of dollars on the Iraq War, 1.4 billion to Mexico doesn't seem like a whole lot.
4 :
Of course it is a bad Idea, but we are talking about a country that has been fighting a war on drugs for 30 years. And losing.
5 :
well this present govt has a soft heart for mexico they will do anything to support them as long as this present US govt is in the power
6 :
Mexico should spend the 7 billion to improve conditions in their country first.
7 :
Isn't it about time that Mexico took responsibility for their corrupt society and did something to change it themselves. Since we are sending all of their absconders back, perhaps they will learn to survive without all of our money going to these idiots! I'm so sick of the illegals and their hostile attitudes, I don't really care about Mexico at all. I'm not going to vacation in that rat hole and I have no family there. Help yourselves for once, that's how the drug cartels became so powerful, they helped themselves. So many public officials had their hands out to them, they have exactly what they asked for.
8 :
God damn it!!! I'm tired of money going to help everyone but the ACTUAL CITIZENS!!!
9 :
That money would be better spent here on ICE agents, Border Patrolmen,and a fence made in America.
10 :
Most of you think Mexico is the only responsible for this drug wars. Well, here's a thought... .if drugs werent as widely bought in the US there would be no need for drug cartels to exist.... who would they sell the drugs to???? poor mexicans? they cant afford it.... rich mexicans??? it's not that many of us to make that kind of business out of it. Its like what happens with fur coats... one would need to cut back demand to deal with the problem So yes... drug wars are our problem as mexicans and believe me... we are very very aggraviated by them, but please dont act like they are just a product of mexican corruption... because they are also a product of american consumption. And given that we cannot afford to fight this war with our own resources, it is under your best interest to help Mexico (disregarding any responsibility you might have on the matter) if you want to keep drugs away from your children. So no, I dont think you are throwing that money away... and I dont think that your government would do it just to help Mexico,,, I think good things could come out of this for both countries, but you manage to think that we are enemies and that we do not deserve your attention instead of acknowledging that we need to be in this together.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
How much money do ppl make in Montgomery, AL.?
How much money do ppl make in Montgomery, AL.?
I know it depends on the job but for example the cost of living is higher in Alaska so I made more there, than New Mexico. Has anyone looked for work in Alabama and seen the range of pay there?
Other - Society & Culture - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Check with the Montgomery Chamber of Commerce for accurate answers to your questions.
2 :
I live in Montgomery and I anecdotally believe you could expect to make about 10-15% less than in a bigger city such as Birmingham. Maybe 25-35% less than in New York City. But that is basically a guess. You really don't have a high cost of living here because housing is still relatively inexpensive -- several 3/2 and some 4/2 houses have sold for $100K.
I know it depends on the job but for example the cost of living is higher in Alaska so I made more there, than New Mexico. Has anyone looked for work in Alabama and seen the range of pay there?
Other - Society & Culture - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Check with the Montgomery Chamber of Commerce for accurate answers to your questions.
2 :
I live in Montgomery and I anecdotally believe you could expect to make about 10-15% less than in a bigger city such as Birmingham. Maybe 25-35% less than in New York City. But that is basically a guess. You really don't have a high cost of living here because housing is still relatively inexpensive -- several 3/2 and some 4/2 houses have sold for $100K.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Bleeding hearts-why haven't you sent your money before this to Mexico-lip services?
Bleeding hearts-why haven't you sent your money before this to Mexico-lip services?
There have been many programs for poor-Oprah had some (yes in Mexico) the money received wasn't much here. You still can send your checks-there seems to be a few of you. Or its it lip services? Send 1/3 of your check down to help the real poor-not all who come are poor (not even half-most paid). I have been there (I have family who married into those who have family there), yes I have see the poor-seen them here too. Poor is poor. Send your money (mine goes here) or quit your lip services. You could make a difference. Why not sign a contract for some illegals expenses as long as they need it-its allowed. Or is it lip service? Start today-what is stopping you.? I want MY money here!-Do what you want with your-and quit trying to take mine Ducky-can you read-I agree.
Immigration - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
We have poor in this country, like the poor victims of Katrina. Why would I send my money to Mexico when there are people that need it here.
2 :
Wow, that is sad. What about the kids that are here that go to bed hungry. What about the family's here that have no heath insurance.
3 :
We send money all the time, my husband has family there. They ARE poor. Why cant you be happy for Oprah?
4 :
What are you talking about !? blah, blah, blah Why do YOU want Americans to send money out of the country ! That not very patriotic ! Lip Service ? ha-ha . You can get on your knees a give me some lip service boy. Don't tell me what to do with my hard earned money !
5 :
yeah right at it dude
6 :
It's not this country's responsibility to fix the problems in Mexico. The illegals need to be deported and kept out.
7 :
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HELP PEOPLE, BUT I WOULD RATHER HELP THE PEOPLE HERE IN MY OWN COUNTRY, THANK YOU. WHY SHOULD I SUPPORT YOU?? GET A JOB, SUPPORT YOURSELF LIKE I DO. STOP YOUR WHINING AND BE A PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF YOUR SOCIETY.
8 :
How can anyone answer your so-called question when it is so poorly presented! I cannot determine what your stance is...puhleeez clarify. For every statement you make, you ask a question or give an answer, and I can't make heads or tails of what the hell you are trying to say.
9 :
I agree with ducky.
There have been many programs for poor-Oprah had some (yes in Mexico) the money received wasn't much here. You still can send your checks-there seems to be a few of you. Or its it lip services? Send 1/3 of your check down to help the real poor-not all who come are poor (not even half-most paid). I have been there (I have family who married into those who have family there), yes I have see the poor-seen them here too. Poor is poor. Send your money (mine goes here) or quit your lip services. You could make a difference. Why not sign a contract for some illegals expenses as long as they need it-its allowed. Or is it lip service? Start today-what is stopping you.? I want MY money here!-Do what you want with your-and quit trying to take mine Ducky-can you read-I agree.
Immigration - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
We have poor in this country, like the poor victims of Katrina. Why would I send my money to Mexico when there are people that need it here.
2 :
Wow, that is sad. What about the kids that are here that go to bed hungry. What about the family's here that have no heath insurance.
3 :
We send money all the time, my husband has family there. They ARE poor. Why cant you be happy for Oprah?
4 :
What are you talking about !? blah, blah, blah Why do YOU want Americans to send money out of the country ! That not very patriotic ! Lip Service ? ha-ha . You can get on your knees a give me some lip service boy. Don't tell me what to do with my hard earned money !
5 :
yeah right at it dude
6 :
It's not this country's responsibility to fix the problems in Mexico. The illegals need to be deported and kept out.
7 :
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HELP PEOPLE, BUT I WOULD RATHER HELP THE PEOPLE HERE IN MY OWN COUNTRY, THANK YOU. WHY SHOULD I SUPPORT YOU?? GET A JOB, SUPPORT YOURSELF LIKE I DO. STOP YOUR WHINING AND BE A PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF YOUR SOCIETY.
8 :
How can anyone answer your so-called question when it is so poorly presented! I cannot determine what your stance is...puhleeez clarify. For every statement you make, you ask a question or give an answer, and I can't make heads or tails of what the hell you are trying to say.
9 :
I agree with ducky.
Monday, May 28, 2012
What kind of money do florists make?
What kind of money do florists make?
I want to open a flower shop in the City of Mexico and Guatemala....I have no idea what kind of numbers I will be looking at by the end of the month...
Decorating & Remodeling - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
depending on how busy the store is. because flowers are seasonal - valentines and christmas or other occasions are your most choice of the year.
I want to open a flower shop in the City of Mexico and Guatemala....I have no idea what kind of numbers I will be looking at by the end of the month...
Decorating & Remodeling - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
depending on how busy the store is. because flowers are seasonal - valentines and christmas or other occasions are your most choice of the year.
Monday, May 14, 2012
21 year old student in Monterrey Mexico, I need a business opportunity, anyone needs a distributor ?
21 year old student in Monterrey Mexico, I need a business opportunity, anyone needs a distributor ?
I want to start working, if anyone has any products they are intrested in selling down here in Mexico , please let me know. Or if anyone has a good idea on how to make money online or of that sort , please let me know. I am 21 years old, I am in collage and have a lot of time on my hands. I want to start making money, if some has an idea or a product they would like to sell in Mexico please let me know.
Small Business - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Hi there, I am a designer and occasionally we have items that are left over. Let me know if you would be interested in importing this as our bags does very well in US. Everything shipped needs to be prepaid. You can email me at christineicn@hotmail.com
2 :
MakingYouRicher is the complete guide to making large amounts of money through niche marketing on the web. Online marketing guides are some of the most popular products sold on the net, and MYR sets it's self apart form the crowd in a big way. http://track.lativio.com/hit.php?w=110487&p=2&s=45
3 :
Que onda masadaz, Aqui te dejo un link a una compañia internacional en donde puedes hacer una muy buena lanita al mes trabajando desde tu propia casa, incluso hay miembros que estan ganando cantidades de 5 cifras al mes. Se llama GDI, aqui en el link encontraras toda la información que necesites. Soy de Miguel Aleman, Tamaulipas, vecino tuyo viejo, si necesitas ayuda, contactame con gusto te asesorare! http://www.working-online.ws Que tengas buen dia!
I want to start working, if anyone has any products they are intrested in selling down here in Mexico , please let me know. Or if anyone has a good idea on how to make money online or of that sort , please let me know. I am 21 years old, I am in collage and have a lot of time on my hands. I want to start making money, if some has an idea or a product they would like to sell in Mexico please let me know.
Small Business - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Hi there, I am a designer and occasionally we have items that are left over. Let me know if you would be interested in importing this as our bags does very well in US. Everything shipped needs to be prepaid. You can email me at christineicn@hotmail.com
2 :
MakingYouRicher is the complete guide to making large amounts of money through niche marketing on the web. Online marketing guides are some of the most popular products sold on the net, and MYR sets it's self apart form the crowd in a big way. http://track.lativio.com/hit.php?w=110487&p=2&s=45
3 :
Que onda masadaz, Aqui te dejo un link a una compañia internacional en donde puedes hacer una muy buena lanita al mes trabajando desde tu propia casa, incluso hay miembros que estan ganando cantidades de 5 cifras al mes. Se llama GDI, aqui en el link encontraras toda la información que necesites. Soy de Miguel Aleman, Tamaulipas, vecino tuyo viejo, si necesitas ayuda, contactame con gusto te asesorare! http://www.working-online.ws Que tengas buen dia!
Monday, May 7, 2012
Why do people think that a stateowned oil company that would make gas cheap and employ 1000s is evilCommunism?
Why do people think that a stateowned oil company that would make gas cheap and employ 1000s is evilCommunism?
When I lived in Alaska during the 04 elections there was a proposition by some candidate that I don't know the name of that suggested that Alaska state should allow the residents of Alaska to vote for or against a State owned oil and refinery company. and a month or so before the 04elections the idea was scrapped. The theory of the state owned oil company is that since the oil right in Alaska are on state land then it is owned by the state and therefor not under OPEC and therefore would not have to be placed on the world market and would simply be sold to America and Canada and Mexico thus eliminating the competition and making it cheaper since the government would drill for more oil unlike the oil companys who drill very little and pretend theres no possibility that producing oil is possible. I thought that was a great idea but apparently there hardcore capitalists that think low gas prices and more jobs for Americans is to "Communism" Why? Capitalism is free market and free trade but that doesn't mean that our natural resources like oil should be hauled off to The People's Republic Of China!! American tax payers should have the benefit of having a government that will not whore out our natural resources when we are paying over 4 a gallon.Shouldn't Alaska's oil fields be maned by State hourly workers instead of private companies like Exxon/HEss .I'm just wondering why the capitalist's would feel persecuted by low energy prices and spawning employment rates. can someone elaborate? I want to further explain how this system works in Alaska because the last time I posted this answer there were 1or2 people who said it was a monopoly which I find funny because according to capitalism eliminating monopolys is like taking away the incentive of producers to produce but anyway. IN Alaska since the discovery of oil the State has established itself as the rightful and legal owner of it's mineral rights and reserves the right to lease it mineral rights to Oil Companies for it own economical benefits. Alaska leases it oil rights on 10yr lease agreements to Conoco-phillips oil company .If a state owned oil company and refinery were to happen Alaska would stop leasing the mineral rights out and buy the equipment and materials from the company and probably rehire the employees and continue the same work .The oil companys would be able to set up shop anywhere else in the state or in the world if they so please and they will. Once this happens the elected officials who run the company would establish the minium price to be set that would ensure that "business" would remain cost effective. The Oil fields would be used to the full capacity to ensure there is an abundant amount of crude to keep prices low. A private company like conco phillips in this situation would simply reduce the amount of oil produced to create the falsehood of there not being enough oil and then marking the price up!!! The state owned company would atleast double the production thus creating more jobs and selling oil at wholesale prices thus making gas cheap! If you don't believe me feel free to do your research! in reply to- Ubuntu Linux A state owned Oil and refinary company is not a monopoly!! The state oned company would compete with the major oil companies. If the oil companies want to sell 4 dollars a gallon gas while the state sells it for a 1.50 then they have every right to the oil companies will make more money in actuality because the state owned companies would remove a a portion of the available oil supply from the world supply then the oil companys can have an excuse to rip off the People's republic of China and that way your family can get a huge return on the Exxon stock!!! 1 second ago in reply to username -wwpetcem_.. Who said....... Take over 1 company people don't like..it would be easier to take over more..where would it end? You did not listen there is no "taking over" The mineral rights are owned by the state and the state had the right to lease the mineral rights to the oil companies. All the state oned oil company would do is tap the oil field with there own drill and produce oil from there own property.and refine it and sell it for cheap while still allowing big oil companies to operate so as long as they pay there "RENT" because the oil companies do not own the mineral rights because no one can own mineral rights but either the state or the federal government!!! I'd also like to let all those who are about to say the government stinks when it comes to busness. My gas and electric is contracted by the state and pretty much is ran by the state with price and budget caps. Gasoline has doubled in the past 2 years!! however my electric and gas have not! I'd say the government is doing a fine job when it comes to regulating energy and commodities! Lets not forget to mention the Irs which is the biggest debt collector in the country. They have manage to collect everyones taxes no problem. Have you ever heard of the government going bankrupt because the IRS wasn't doing a good job at collecting debt.??? Ok now if your going to say the government should not run and own an oil company because they are no good at it . The I want you to explain why a state contracted heating gas company and a state ran electric company are doing just fine? Why do people fear the government when there is talk of having state owned oil companies yet they fail to realize local,state, and federal government does a great job at making your electricity,bringing you heating gas??? Are people fearful that the government might actually beable to help society?? Can hardcore capitalist explain why in Kuwait gasoline is less than a dollar per gallon ?? Kuwait has a state owned oil and refinery that take a small percentage of the oil and sells it in there own country for cheap regardless of the world market conditions!!! Why do people insist on supporting suck a strict for of capitalism when is clear that 5 dollar per gallon gas prices are now helping the economy as much as it's benefiting the few.?
Politics - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Because they're brain-washed, can't think for themselves conservative lap-dogs of the mega-rich.
2 :
Its a slippery slope
3 :
I'll be brief. When it comes to running a business, government's track record STINKS. But to answer your basic question: State ownership of industry is one of the underlying tenets of communism, so yes that would be more communist than capitalist. The cost of fuel is based upon the cost of crude. Crude is a commodity. Whoever is running the company isn't going to affect commodity prices on the world markets. Even if you plowed all of the profits back into the pricing, the cost of a gallon of gas would MAYBE drop 10¢. Big Whoopie! Most of the cost of crude today is due to the value of the dollar. Crude is priced in US dollars on the global markets. That means that foreign producers have to raise the dollar price to maintain their income stream in their own currency. The dollar is in the toilet due to the HUGE Federal deficit, currently approaching $10 TRILLION. That's more than double what it was when Bush took office. His failed economic policies are the reason for the deficit. Never in the history of the nation has an administration maintained tax cuts during an expensive war. Edit: You're confusing careful government regulation of a monopoly with State ownership. Two VERY different concepts! The State of AK does regulate drilling activity and that's as it should be. If it didn't, the North Slope would be awash with spills and the pipeline would be leakier than it already is.
4 :
I fail to see any reason for it. In fact we do have socialism for services that are considered vital to our society such as municipal fire and police departments which are paid for by tax dollars not users. By having them run by the government entity they can be sure that employees are local thereby helping the local economy and making sure that the workers have a vested interest in the community. Sounds like all good to me. Plus when there is corruption you can prosecute and/or put out of office those who are corrupt in government; but when corporations are corrupt it is next to impossible to prosecute anyone - you can't put a corporation in prison and the fines assessed for breaking laws are just viewed as one more cost of doing business. But over the years "communist" has been used as the ultimate bogey-man word to scare people much as they are trying to use "terrorists" now. Please everyone be sure to look beyond the scare tactics and try to see what is really going on before making up your minds.
5 :
nationalizing anything is a bad idea they may claim they will compete with private companies, but soon they won't Read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
6 :
Hi, again, some misconceptions. There are actually very few public utilities left in the USA, almost all of them are now private providers who have exclusive contracts with the localities that they serve. One of the real problems with state owned companies is inefficiency, because they do not exist to make profit, they exist as part of an overall national policy which is often to provide as many jobs as possible or to subsidize delivery of services, or some other feel-good idea that makes sense at the time, but always the poor economics of the institution will always catch up with the noble ideals that the entity was founded to provide. And as for your example of Kuwait, that is a very specific example and is not the norm for the rest of oil producing countries. First off, the government and the people agreed that everyone would share in the profits, and the population is small enough that there is plenty to go around. With a country like the USA, dividing the profits up between everyone leaves so little per person that there is very little incentive for even getting up in the morning to go to work. Secondly, since the oil rigs are already in existence, the cost of extracting the oil is one of the lowest in the world, and the low price to their own people is subsidized by foreign buyers who pay $120 for a barrel that cost $19 to get out of the ground. Also, in Kuwait the work force is largely imported from developing countries with very low wages and poor working conditions (although certainly better than their home country - as someone interviewed on NPR said years ago, the cure for sweat shops is more sweat shops). Right across the border, in Saudi Arabia which also has a relatively small population and huge oil profits, these conditions are not the same because there the entire oil wealth is owned by the royal family, one of the reasons why 15 out of 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and not Iraqis or Yemenis.
When I lived in Alaska during the 04 elections there was a proposition by some candidate that I don't know the name of that suggested that Alaska state should allow the residents of Alaska to vote for or against a State owned oil and refinery company. and a month or so before the 04elections the idea was scrapped. The theory of the state owned oil company is that since the oil right in Alaska are on state land then it is owned by the state and therefor not under OPEC and therefore would not have to be placed on the world market and would simply be sold to America and Canada and Mexico thus eliminating the competition and making it cheaper since the government would drill for more oil unlike the oil companys who drill very little and pretend theres no possibility that producing oil is possible. I thought that was a great idea but apparently there hardcore capitalists that think low gas prices and more jobs for Americans is to "Communism" Why? Capitalism is free market and free trade but that doesn't mean that our natural resources like oil should be hauled off to The People's Republic Of China!! American tax payers should have the benefit of having a government that will not whore out our natural resources when we are paying over 4 a gallon.Shouldn't Alaska's oil fields be maned by State hourly workers instead of private companies like Exxon/HEss .I'm just wondering why the capitalist's would feel persecuted by low energy prices and spawning employment rates. can someone elaborate? I want to further explain how this system works in Alaska because the last time I posted this answer there were 1or2 people who said it was a monopoly which I find funny because according to capitalism eliminating monopolys is like taking away the incentive of producers to produce but anyway. IN Alaska since the discovery of oil the State has established itself as the rightful and legal owner of it's mineral rights and reserves the right to lease it mineral rights to Oil Companies for it own economical benefits. Alaska leases it oil rights on 10yr lease agreements to Conoco-phillips oil company .If a state owned oil company and refinery were to happen Alaska would stop leasing the mineral rights out and buy the equipment and materials from the company and probably rehire the employees and continue the same work .The oil companys would be able to set up shop anywhere else in the state or in the world if they so please and they will. Once this happens the elected officials who run the company would establish the minium price to be set that would ensure that "business" would remain cost effective. The Oil fields would be used to the full capacity to ensure there is an abundant amount of crude to keep prices low. A private company like conco phillips in this situation would simply reduce the amount of oil produced to create the falsehood of there not being enough oil and then marking the price up!!! The state owned company would atleast double the production thus creating more jobs and selling oil at wholesale prices thus making gas cheap! If you don't believe me feel free to do your research! in reply to- Ubuntu Linux A state owned Oil and refinary company is not a monopoly!! The state oned company would compete with the major oil companies. If the oil companies want to sell 4 dollars a gallon gas while the state sells it for a 1.50 then they have every right to the oil companies will make more money in actuality because the state owned companies would remove a a portion of the available oil supply from the world supply then the oil companys can have an excuse to rip off the People's republic of China and that way your family can get a huge return on the Exxon stock!!! 1 second ago in reply to username -wwpetcem_.. Who said....... Take over 1 company people don't like..it would be easier to take over more..where would it end? You did not listen there is no "taking over" The mineral rights are owned by the state and the state had the right to lease the mineral rights to the oil companies. All the state oned oil company would do is tap the oil field with there own drill and produce oil from there own property.and refine it and sell it for cheap while still allowing big oil companies to operate so as long as they pay there "RENT" because the oil companies do not own the mineral rights because no one can own mineral rights but either the state or the federal government!!! I'd also like to let all those who are about to say the government stinks when it comes to busness. My gas and electric is contracted by the state and pretty much is ran by the state with price and budget caps. Gasoline has doubled in the past 2 years!! however my electric and gas have not! I'd say the government is doing a fine job when it comes to regulating energy and commodities! Lets not forget to mention the Irs which is the biggest debt collector in the country. They have manage to collect everyones taxes no problem. Have you ever heard of the government going bankrupt because the IRS wasn't doing a good job at collecting debt.??? Ok now if your going to say the government should not run and own an oil company because they are no good at it . The I want you to explain why a state contracted heating gas company and a state ran electric company are doing just fine? Why do people fear the government when there is talk of having state owned oil companies yet they fail to realize local,state, and federal government does a great job at making your electricity,bringing you heating gas??? Are people fearful that the government might actually beable to help society?? Can hardcore capitalist explain why in Kuwait gasoline is less than a dollar per gallon ?? Kuwait has a state owned oil and refinery that take a small percentage of the oil and sells it in there own country for cheap regardless of the world market conditions!!! Why do people insist on supporting suck a strict for of capitalism when is clear that 5 dollar per gallon gas prices are now helping the economy as much as it's benefiting the few.?
Politics - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Because they're brain-washed, can't think for themselves conservative lap-dogs of the mega-rich.
2 :
Its a slippery slope
3 :
I'll be brief. When it comes to running a business, government's track record STINKS. But to answer your basic question: State ownership of industry is one of the underlying tenets of communism, so yes that would be more communist than capitalist. The cost of fuel is based upon the cost of crude. Crude is a commodity. Whoever is running the company isn't going to affect commodity prices on the world markets. Even if you plowed all of the profits back into the pricing, the cost of a gallon of gas would MAYBE drop 10¢. Big Whoopie! Most of the cost of crude today is due to the value of the dollar. Crude is priced in US dollars on the global markets. That means that foreign producers have to raise the dollar price to maintain their income stream in their own currency. The dollar is in the toilet due to the HUGE Federal deficit, currently approaching $10 TRILLION. That's more than double what it was when Bush took office. His failed economic policies are the reason for the deficit. Never in the history of the nation has an administration maintained tax cuts during an expensive war. Edit: You're confusing careful government regulation of a monopoly with State ownership. Two VERY different concepts! The State of AK does regulate drilling activity and that's as it should be. If it didn't, the North Slope would be awash with spills and the pipeline would be leakier than it already is.
4 :
I fail to see any reason for it. In fact we do have socialism for services that are considered vital to our society such as municipal fire and police departments which are paid for by tax dollars not users. By having them run by the government entity they can be sure that employees are local thereby helping the local economy and making sure that the workers have a vested interest in the community. Sounds like all good to me. Plus when there is corruption you can prosecute and/or put out of office those who are corrupt in government; but when corporations are corrupt it is next to impossible to prosecute anyone - you can't put a corporation in prison and the fines assessed for breaking laws are just viewed as one more cost of doing business. But over the years "communist" has been used as the ultimate bogey-man word to scare people much as they are trying to use "terrorists" now. Please everyone be sure to look beyond the scare tactics and try to see what is really going on before making up your minds.
5 :
nationalizing anything is a bad idea they may claim they will compete with private companies, but soon they won't Read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
6 :
Hi, again, some misconceptions. There are actually very few public utilities left in the USA, almost all of them are now private providers who have exclusive contracts with the localities that they serve. One of the real problems with state owned companies is inefficiency, because they do not exist to make profit, they exist as part of an overall national policy which is often to provide as many jobs as possible or to subsidize delivery of services, or some other feel-good idea that makes sense at the time, but always the poor economics of the institution will always catch up with the noble ideals that the entity was founded to provide. And as for your example of Kuwait, that is a very specific example and is not the norm for the rest of oil producing countries. First off, the government and the people agreed that everyone would share in the profits, and the population is small enough that there is plenty to go around. With a country like the USA, dividing the profits up between everyone leaves so little per person that there is very little incentive for even getting up in the morning to go to work. Secondly, since the oil rigs are already in existence, the cost of extracting the oil is one of the lowest in the world, and the low price to their own people is subsidized by foreign buyers who pay $120 for a barrel that cost $19 to get out of the ground. Also, in Kuwait the work force is largely imported from developing countries with very low wages and poor working conditions (although certainly better than their home country - as someone interviewed on NPR said years ago, the cure for sweat shops is more sweat shops). Right across the border, in Saudi Arabia which also has a relatively small population and huge oil profits, these conditions are not the same because there the entire oil wealth is owned by the royal family, one of the reasons why 15 out of 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and not Iraqis or Yemenis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)