Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nationalize the mines and other extraction industries like lumber and

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:10 PM
Original message
Nationalize the mines and other extraction industries like lumber and
petroleum like other countries have. By rights, we the people, should own our country's resources. These industries should be run by the government, with proper safety and environmental rules, and union representation. The raw goods should be sold on the commodities market at market price with all profits to go into the Treasury to pay down our debt and pay for national health care, education and other social programs. Sure, we should buy out the mines, instead of taking them over by fiat, but we should own and operate them from that time on.

I grew up in a copper mining camp and on a scale of one to ten it was a nine in modernization, however, I saw first hand the abuses of a company that existed like a kingdom with everyone beholden to the General Manager and the headquarters in NYC. It's a very dangerous job in spite of the best of safety regulations. Although our workers did have union representation, they were derided by management as communists. I know, I spent one summer vacation from school working in the Labor Relations department and it was very eye opening how the company viewed its workers. It seems none of these mines in this day and age are following regulations and have busted the labor unions. They would rather pay the fines than put in the safety precautions and nets. First there was Utah and now this. Private industry only cares about the bottom line not the lives of the workers. Make them national. Let the people have the profits for our common infrastructure and common social needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. K and R. I see some "free market lover" unrec'd you. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yeah, the idea is too commie for most who have been brainwashed
into the Capitalism is the only way meme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. We have some serious supply-siders on this board.
They heart them some plutocracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. You have GOT to be shitting me
A supply sider AND a legitimate DUer(not a troll)?

I thought only wingnuts had drank that much kool-aid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Well of course
Ultimately the Dem party is a free-market, capitalist party. I mean, sure, their rhetoric is filled with 'regulation' but the reality isn't and never has been anything other than pro-capitalist.

Party aside, you'd have to go back to the 1930s in teh US to see any evidence of major legislation that challenged the status quo in that way and it's all been watered down by now (inevitably, given what capitalism is...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. The Dem party actually has been the party of promoting the
Constitutional idea of a government that is by the people and for the people and if it's regulation that is needed to accomplish that then regulation is what they will opt for. If there are social programs that advance the well-being of all the people, then they will try for that. It has been pro-commerce and pro-regulated capitalism, but never laissez faire capitalism, which the fascist wing of the Republican Party has brought us in the last decades. I'm not happy with the New Democrat or DLC version that is taking over the party. I'm an old FDR Democrat and that's where I'm staying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. But the very idea of 'regulation'
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 02:33 PM by Cal Carpenter
is quite pro-capitalist. To assume that regulation can accomplish anything on behalf of the people is to assume that capitalism is the best system and that it can successfully be regulated, whereas history shows the opposite to be true.

Even when you get legislation passed to regulate industry it is rarely enforced, and when attempts are made to enforce it significantly, the financially-powerful do whatever they need to do to overturn or water down the regulation. Environmental regs - rarely enforced, mild 'punishments' (eg not criminal, just nominal fines), Labor rights - have gotten watered down since the New Deal by both parties, Health Care, Credit Cards, need I say more? By both parties.

By it's nature, capitalism as a system concentrates power so that it cannot be regulated in a meaningful or lasting way. It has nothing to do with party. If the Democrats were issuing any challenge to the system itself then maybe it would be different but they don't. They can't. They ARE that system. The reason the power can become so concentrated is because there can be no political democracy without economic democracy - as a nation we tend to perceive these as two different things but economics and politics are part and parcel of the system of power in the world. And until the people have economic democracy we have no political democracy. We can't possibly compete with the power of those holding the concentrated capital.

And the evidence also shows that the concentration of wealth is becoming more and more intense. All this 'regulation' hasn't done a thing to stop that. Because it's impossible to.

It's like a pendulum with a range of 10 feet swinging 2" back and forth.

It's like whack-a-mole.

Most people will lose under capitalism. The whole premise of the system determines that.

eta: As far as FDR/New Deal - those 'reforms' and regulations weren't the result of the Dem party fighting for the people. They were the result of people fighting (often with their lives) against the establishment politicians - including the Dems. Nostalgia is nice but the truth is that the Dems gave the people those concessions very reluctantly. If they hadn't done so, then maybe we would have had a real challenge to capitalism at that time. Maybe we'd have lasting changes. Almost a hundred years, a red scare and cold war later, it looks a lot different.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. The fact is that Hoover didn't give them at all. So which side
was more open to change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Change and concessions are not the same thing
I see the 'sides' as very different than you do, but I'll answer in your terms.

Neither of the 'sides' was open to change. One of them happened to be in power when things got to the breaking point, they were forced to offer some concessions which, as I stated, were not fundamental changes and were not long-lasting. Those concessions were offered as a way to avoid fundamental change, and to keep capitalism afloat.

And it worked. And look where we are today. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Well, what else would you expect
on a website dedicated to electing Democratic politicians?

Ever read the party platform? It sure as shit ain't about nationalization of industry or anti-capitalism in any significant sense...

Not judging, just pointing it out.... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. This website has also been about have polite discussions about various
POVs, even those you don't agree with. Other than that, if you walk in lockstep, you might as well not call yourself a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cal Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. As I said
I'm not judging, just pointing it out...In fact, by stating that so carefully in my earlier post I thought I was a) indicating that I am not 'in lockstep' with the Dem party and b) attempting a polite discussion.

I believe you have possibly made assumptions about my personal political beliefs (which are irrelevent to this particular conversation AFAIC). I'm not talking about opinions, I am talking about straightforward empirical evidence.

If mentioning the apparent contradictions in a polite manner still makes me impolite, well, I don't really know what to say!

Personally, I am interested in history and reality, not partisanship. I rarely listen to the rhetoric - I look at the nitty-gritty parts of the platforms and the actual legislative actions of the parties to come to conclusions. What my point is - there seem to be a lot of people who think the Dems are something they are not, particularly when it comes to economics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sounds reasonable. EDIT
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 01:22 PM by Deep13
Of course the Rs with their war spending and their tax-cutting has made sure that the Feds. cannot possibly afford to buy-out these industries.

Oh, and here's your "rec" back. :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. They have no problem with financing wars.
They can borrow the money and pay it back with the proceeds that they will eventually get. I say we do it one mine at a time. Every time a company is found with this many violations we need to give them an offer to buy them out and then do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. I agree in principle, the damage is cumulative.
The debt we already have would be added to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. Works for me. I turn redder and redder the older I get and the more
crime I see at the hands of unfettered free-market capitalists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humus Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. Matewan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matewan

Matewan (1987) is an American drama film written and directed by John Sayles, illustrating the events of a coal mine-workers' strike and attempt to unionize in 1920 in Matewan, a small town in the hills of West Virginia.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I never heard of it. I need to get a video of it.
It looks like really interesting history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kievan Rus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. I believe that land should be privately owned for the most part...
However, natural resources should belong to the people. Hell even backwards ass countries like Saudi Arabia have that much figured out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I hope not. Turning over the national forests and blm lands to private
ownership would turn those lands into pavement, strip malls and toxic waste dumps. It's bad enough that the lumber companies and ranchers use our lands as their personal resources because of the weakness of the feds to control them. But of course this has been because of decades of corporate shills being appointed as Department of the Interior secretaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. "for the most part"
Public lands not included was what I meant. Certainly there should be land set aside for public recreation and nature preserves, just as there always has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Exactly what natural resources in Saudi Arabia belong to the people?
Exactly none. They all belong to the royal family. Who are you trying to kid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Royal family only takes 50% of the profits. Rest goes to the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #25
107. only?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #107
127. I think it is too much as well but it gives 50% more to the people than Exxon does.
Edited on Wed Apr-07-10 08:22 PM by harun
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Exactly how do you figure they don't?
The oil industry in Saudi Arabia is nationalized and accounts for 80% of all government revenues. The vast majority of Saudi citizens work either directly or indirectly for the government. Education is government provided for all Saudi citizens, including university education. Health care is also government provided to Saudi citizens. Saudi citizens also receive a number of other government provided services that are too many to list. Oil pays for all this. The royal family may be skimming a lot off the top which is true for most middle eastern countries, but the majority of oil revenue flows back to the people. Compare that to the US where none of it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
42. That you would compare a backward neo-fascist country
like Saudi Arabia favorable with the U.S. says a lot about you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #42
65. Your snark speak volumes about you
You got busted making a ridiculous assertion you can't even begin to support and now you want to misrepresent what I said in order to make an equally ridiculous snark. I'm done with you until you mature a bit.

Have a nice day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #65
69. Your posts contained nothing but assertions.
Maybe you can provide links which are not royal family press releases to your claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
17. I agree.
The resources of the land should belong to the whole people. Citizenship should be like being a shareholder in a collective enterprise. National sovereignty means protecting that enterprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Well put. I will have to remember to frame it just that way for
our supply side friends. It's language they might understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. It's an issue of "framing."
Patriotism has appeal to the left and the right. In its rightist form, it can bolster racism and imperialism. In its leftist form, it can bolster collectivism and socialism. It is, at its heart opposed to extreme self-interest and individualism in whatever form. That is why I thought after the 9/11/01 incidents, that the Democrats needed to articulate a left-patriotic platform including nationalizing ports, transport, etc., for "national security" reasons. We need to make the right out to be anti-patriotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
27. In this regard I am a full-0n Socialist. I agree 100%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
30. Oh my god.
I'm agreeing with Cleita!

*faints dead away*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Welcome to the working class's side of the aisle.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Hell, I was born here!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justanaverageguy Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
33. Your idea is built
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 03:34 PM by justanaverageguy
upon the idea that the government would be able to turn a profit in running and managing all of these various industries. I'm not that confident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Why wouldn't the government be able to?
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 03:46 PM by Cleita
They would be hiring the same experts in mining, engineering, accounting and executive skills, with one big difference, they wouldn't be trying to deliver profits to Wall Street shareholders. We the people, would be the shareholders instead. Yes, if we take care of safety and environmental issues, the margin of profit might be narrower but it still will be profit that goes into the treasury without the price of environmental deterioration and loss of life. If the market fails, like coal becomes passe like whale oil once did, then the industry will die, but that will happen anyway, no matter who is running the mines. In the meantime those revenues will go into the people's Treasury to be used for the people and not to make some fat cat billionaires even richer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. The govt already does business more efficiently, effectively, and cheaply than private industry
Don't buy into the right wing nonsense that it doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #40
72. Yup! Guv'mint already knows cheap real good --- like: where, for instance, it can buy more . . .
. . . of those 600-buck hammers and toilet seats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. Let's see that seemed to have happened during the Reagan years.
However, the military/industrial complex still exists where tax dollars go to private industries like aircraft industries with little oversight because the Republicans make sure of it. However, manufacturing has nothing to do with extraction industries. Get a grip!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #73
76. I'm tryin' . . . I'm tryin'! How does message #75 grab ya?
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #76
86. If you are going to keep posting to me, get your facts in order.
I deliberately chose the Codelco mines as an example because I intimately know a lot about them. I also know that mining is a dirty and destructive business, but as long as there is a demand for the minerals and ores in the earth, they are going to be mined. I think that the people of those nations should benefit from those resources, not private domestic and foreign companies. The people should also be able to demand the safest, most ecological way of doing it. You know when I spent that summer in the Labor Relations office, in the Chuquicamata mine, I talked to the Chilean union leaders a lot, while they were waiting to see the boss. They were the ones who taught me about unionization and the push to nationalize the national resources of that country. They convinced me that it was the thing to do.

Now about WVA. You have a champion, Bobby Kennedy, Jr. who has lamented exactly about what you are talking about the removal of mountain tops in your state, destroying the forests and polluting all your waterways and he's trying to change things but he can't do it without the support of the people of WVA. If you want to change things, bring back the unions no matter how hard it is and start voting for some progressive Democrats in your state who give a fuck about the working people and the mountains and forests of your state. Otherwise, you have been spouting exactly the same talking points that Rush Limbaugh and all of the Fox News commentators cackle on about. You know that they are bought and paid for by the same corporate interests who are destroying your state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #86
92. It was citizens' action groups in West Virginia that caught the attention of . . .
. . . Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. . . . citizens' action groups comprised of people such as
my friends and neighbors---as well as my husband and I---back home in West Virginia.
In case you haven't heard, most miners (sorry to say) and their union have always
helped the coal operators fight us. Nationalization of the coal mines wouldn't change
anything but the pecking order when the name of the game is Money.

As for your accusation that I'm "...spouting the same talking points that Rush Limbaugh
and all of Fox News commentators cackle on about.", I'd have to listen to Limbaugh
and watch Fox News to figure out what in the hell you're talking about before deciding
if it was worth wasting time defending myself.

In any case: If anything was changed by the nationalization of the Codelco mines in Chile,
I can't see it. It looks, now, like some Chilean people are exploiting other Chilean people
in that same dog-eat-dog world. And, so it goes: nationalization playing out like a game of
musical chairs.

Since your arguments and propaganda haven't convinced me that nationalizing the mines is a
good thing, I won't take up any more of your time. I won't be back. (It's National Poetry
Month and I haven't written today's poem yet.)

Take care!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #92
98. Then go on being exploited by the mining companies.
I can't change your mindset anymore than that of the loggers who are being exploited by the lumber companies in the northwest. They used to be exploited by the mills too. It seemed like a regular occurrence of some mill worker being chopped up in the chipper accidentally. Then the mills went to Asia. It's much cheaper to mill lumber there and ship it back to the USA to be sold at Home Depot, Lowes and other home improvement stores. In the meantime the mill workers here never got their jobs back. Well, at least they are out of danger of being chipped while they slowly starve on food stamps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #72
78. Don't you have any more recent myths you can perpetuate?
If you know any freepers, you might check with them. Perhaps they have some newer myths you can run with. That one is only about 25 years old now, and has been debunked at least for half that.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1298/120798t1.htm

There's lots of examples in DOD about what's wrong with government, but that's because it has been and still is infested with people like Cheney who write themselves checks payable by the treasury.

Instead, try looking at the USPS, who can deliver a letter in 2-3 days anywhere in the country for $0.44 compared to FedEx that will charge you $12-22 for the same service. Try looking at Medicare, who administers health insurance for about 1/5th the cost of private insurers.

Those that choose to perpetuate myths convieniently forget that there's lots of things the government does very well. They also convieniently forget about Enron, Exxon, Tyco, Haliburton, and dozens of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. Thanks for the link! Don't know any freepers; but would this "myth" pass muster as "newer"? --->
Edited on Wed Apr-07-10 02:44 AM by Petrushka
Petrushka (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-07-10 06:12 AM

Response to Original message

75. Here's a picture of Codelco's Cuquicamata open-pit copper mine . . .

Edited on Wed Apr-07-10 06:21 AM by Petrushka

. . . a picture for those who aren't interested in booking a tour to visit what's supposedly
the world's largest copper mine, the world's largest copper mine where tourists are overwhelmed
by everything, everything's so HUGE: the pit (one of the most amazing holes in the world), the
trucks, the factories and (mustn't forget!) the slag heaps, slag heaps that prove more important
than the people who receive 24-hour notice to get out of town because their homes must, in the
interests of efficiency, be buried under all that slag:






Reminds me of those mountaintop removal minesites in downstate West Virginia. Maybe, by nationalizing
the coal mines, West Virginians would someday be able to brag about our overwhelming slag heaps
instead of our beautiful hills and mountains!



Here's a link to one tourist's feeling about that copper mine in Chile:

http://realtravel.com/e-146398-chuquicamata_entry-feeli ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #80
83. It doesn't even pass as relevant
I think we're done here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #80
89. Brought to you by Anaconda Copper Company, an American company
who dug that pit for fifty+years before the mine was nationalized as Codelco in the seventies. Look it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #89
97. That is one humongous bottomless pit! Dig, dig, dig it!
:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #78
91. Thanks for the link. I knew it had been debunked but I couldn't
find a link. This is the problem with rumors and lies when they go viral. They never end. Propagandists know this. So even if they have to retract the lie at a later date, they know the damage has been done. It keeps getting repeated over and over again for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. Such is the case for most government demonizing
Hardly a week goes by without some GOPher comparing the latest Democratic Party proposal to the DMV. While I'm sure long DMV lines do exist, I've personally waited longer at the grocery store checkout than I ever have at the DMV, and why do they never compare the wait at places like the emergency room which can take hours? They also give the example of the post office, but the USPS is actually extremely cheap and efficient. Try mailing a letter in any other country in the world (some of which have privatized service) and you'll pay far more postage even though the distances may be far less. No federal government official other than Obama has a base pay that's higher than Nancy Pelosi. Compare that to private sector where CEOs may make billions. Fraud, waste, and corruption is far lower in the federal government, because you always have multiple layers of oversight.

The reality is that government operates far more efficiently than the private sector, but if you dare suggest this, people's heads explode. People believe what they want to believe I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #94
100. About the DMV. They are state run anyway. I have rec driver's licenses
in three states and they all operate differently. It also depends on where you are. Big cities have longer waits than small towns. It amazes me how they try to equate the DMV with Social Security and other federally run programs and they aren't even federal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #100
106. The people who make such comparisons either do so for the sake of idiots, or are idiots themselves
I'm not sure which is worse.

Even the GOPhers won't openly demonize SS and Medicare, yet if that many fucksticks had been in office back then, they would never have passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #40
81. I think that's true only for things that should be public goods anyway
The government has no business trying to run department stores, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #81
90. Or the goods sold in the department stores. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #33
79. When have natural resources NOT been profitable? And why would "profit" be your first consideration
works well for other nations, sure as hell wouldn't hurt ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justanaverageguy Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #79
108. Because the profit is a central point of the op
The OP supports this idea in part because it would add money to the treasury to pay for other government supplied services. For that to occur the government would have to bring in more money in the sale of the coal than it cost to mine the coal. Profit. If the government doesn't bring more money in than it pays out then not only are subsidizing the industry at a loss to the tax payer, we are also losing the taxes that would have been paid on the profit when the industry was private.

As to your question, there certainly has been times when natural resources haven't been profitable. Ask anyone who lived in Houston in the late 70's and early 80's when oil went to $10, ask farmers about profits (isn't food a natural resource just like lumber). I bet there are some lumber companies that aren't doing well right now with lack of building projects.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
34. Damn straight....

along with the finance, energy and health sectors. That would be a good start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
36. I agree. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geardaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
37. K and R
We have public services, why not have public sources of income?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
38. As a native West Virginian, I might agree with you if . . .
. . . mining profits remained in the coffers of the State(s) that
produced them, in the State(s) where, now, in the name of out-of-State
company profit, our citizens and communities in coal mining States were,
are, and will continue to be saddled with the hidden costs of mining. However,
I cannot agree with you because I do not see how the situation in mining
States would be different if mining profits would continue to go out-of-State
in the name of national "patriotism".

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Certainly the states should take their share providing they
use it for social programs and infrastructure and they figure out a way to keep it out of the hands of corrupt business interests and corrupt politicians. But you still have to give a portion to the feds so that they can distribute it to the states who don't have a lot of natural resources. It's how you float all boats. Remember when your coal is no longer needed you may be dependent on other states for money from their resources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. When you live in a State where natural water resources . . .
. . . continue to be buried and polluted by mine wastes, where
natural water sources and supplies are destroyed by intentional
subsidence techniques . . . well . . . don't imagine many of us
would give a good goddamn about "...how you float all boats." Not
when we'd continue to be guinea pigs for the same-ole irresponsible
mining methods.

"Remember when...."? Indeed! I'll remember how "...you still have to
give a portion to the feds so that they can distribute it to....",
as always, the "corrupt business interests and corrupt politicians."



:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. I guess I understand why you have been so exploited by the mining
companies. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
41. About Codelco, the nationalized copper mining organization that replaced
the American companies of Anaconda Copper and Kennecott copper in Chile. It is 100% owned by the the people of Chile who receive benefits from the income generated by copper. One of the mines they nationalized was one that I grew up in. When I was living there I never thought it would have been possible to get the entrenched American and British interests out of there, but it happened so there is hope.

Besides operating major deposits, Codelco has established its leadership by keeping one of the lowest production costs in the world, 39,7 cents per lb in 2007 (cash cost). This makes it possible to maintain a profit margin even during adverse market conditions.

From the viewpoint of commercialization, one of the key aspects is the existence of a portfolio of clients that is stable and geographically diverse.
Codelco is also a world leader in molybdenum production and sales. In 2007 it produced 27.857 metric tons of this metal, used mainly to make special steel alloys, which were commercialized in markets in Europe, Asia and Latinamerica


http://www.codelco.cl/english/la_corporacion/presencia.asp

What is Codelco?
Codelco is the Corporación Nacional del Cobre de Chile

What is its importance?
Codelco is the main copper producer in the world. Also, it is one of the largest companies in Chile.

Who is its owner?
The Corporación Nacional del Cobre is 100% property of the Chilean State. All Chileans own it.

Why was it created?
The constitutional reform that nationalized copper, of july 11, 1970, established the transference to the State of all the big mining properties, which made necessary to create a company capable of exploting and managing them.

When was it founded?
The Law Decree Nº 1,350 of april 1st of 1976 created Codelco, a mining, industrial and commercial State company.

How is it organized?
Codelco has its Head Office in Santiago, Chile. The exploitation, processing and shipment operations are carried out by its Divisions: Codelco Norte Division (fusion of former Chuquicamata and Radomiro Tomic Divisions), Salvador Division, El Teniente Division and Andina Division.
Codelco also participates in mining, non mining and business associations with other companies and it has a network of subsidiaries and sale agents backing up its commercialization activities.

Who work at Codelco?
More than 18 thousand workers collaborate with Codelco.

Who directs the company?
Codelco has a Board of Directors which seven members are nominated by the President of Chile.
In turn, the Board nominates the Executive President which leads a senior staff formed by Senior Vicepresidents and ExecutiveVicepresidents.

What are its aims?
The Corporation has a strategy based on a vision of future, which implies displaying all of its business potential both in Chile and abroad to maintain its position of leader in the copper industry.

What are its products?
The main product of Codelco is refined copper in the form of cathodes which are 99.99% pure copper. The Corporation also produces copper concentrates, blister or anode copper and subproducts such as molybdenum, anodic slimes and sulphuric acid.
In Germany, Codelco also manufactures wire rod, a semimanufactured product that uses copper cathodes as raw material.

How much does it produce?
In 2007, copper production by Codelco reached 1.664.600 metric tons of fine copper (includes Codelco's share of El Abra). It also produced 27.857 metric tons of molybdenum, the main subproduct of the Corporation.

Does it have future reserves?
Codelco has some 77 million metric tons in copper reserves. These are the largest in the world. However, the Corporation has a permanent surveying activity to identify new possibilities of mining business both in Chile and abroad.

Who are its clients?
Codelco´s policy has been aimed at giving priority to refined copper sales to fabricators or producers of semimanufactured products. The Corporation views its clients as strategic partners.

What are its markets?
Copper leaves Chile for clients around the world. The main market is Asia (48%), followed by Europe (31%), Northamerica (13%) and Southamerica (8%) according to 2007 data.

How much copper does it sell?
In 2007 the physical sales of copper reached 1,665 million metric tons, own production.

What is the income from sales?
In 2007 the total income from sales of copper and subproducts reached 16,988 million dollars.

What is copper?
Copper is a metallic element found in nature. Its chemical symbol is "Cu" and its atomic number is 29.

Where is it exploited?
10,000 years ago, when man was leaving the the Stone Age, the exploitation of copper began. Since then it has been present throughout the development of civilization.

What is the importance of copper?
Copper has important properties for the development of societies: high electrical and heat conductivity, resistance to corrosion, durability, it can be recycled and, due to its attractive colour, has been used by craftmen and artists for thousands of years.
Also, health research has established that copper is essential fur all living organisms. We all need a daily dose of this element which, in the case of humans, we obtain through the food we eat.

Does copper have a future?
The development of new technologies ensures an increasingly efficient and sustainable production of copper. This makes possible to gain access to mineral deposits that could not be exploited before, while at the same time complying with the requirements of a society increasingly concerned with the environmental and social conditions of the planet. Beyond the increasing consumption of copper associated to progress and growth, this element has important application in new technologies that will play important roles in our future.

What is molybdenum?
Molybdenum is obtained from sulfide ores during the separation of copper. It is a metallic element required in the international markets since it is used for special steel alloys and other alloys with special properties of durability, strength and resistance to heat and corrosion. Codelco is one of the world´s main producers of molybdenum.

How do I contact Codelco?
To contact Codelco you may use the following postal address:


Web site : http://www.codelco.com/

Copper production and income before taxes since 1990?

YEAR 2007

COPPER PRODUCTION
(Thousands of metric tons) 1,665

INCOME BEFORE TAXES 8.451
(US$ million)


http://www.codelco.cl/english/la_corporacion/faq.asp




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. How much are the workers paid? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Much more than they were paid by the Americans, which was about $40 a month..
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 05:16 PM by Cleita
They make $1,500,000 pesos a month against the national average of $350,000 pesos a month. That's about $3,000 American. They also are unionized.

Also, read this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_rights_in_Chile
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
46. I agree completely, with one exception.
The exception would be to allow small entrepreneurial companies for purposes of innovation. When these companies reach a certain size the owners would be required to sell the company to the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. There is use for a lot of small and large entrepreneurial companies. Mining towns
need stores, they need construction companies for building. I notice that DuPont chemicals, which makes the explosives, is still in Chile and sells its product to the nationalized Codelco corporation. There is plenty of room for contracting professionals outside of the mining industry, which is quite different than privatizing and outsourcing, which is how we do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Morbius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
49. Well, here's another option.
And I grant it may not be as effective a solution as yours, but it is politically much more possible.

And that suggestion is, let's give the federal agencies some damn teeth. The company whose mine saw the awful explosion was repeatedly cited and fined by the feds; I bet the law doesn't allow the feds to shut a mine down. It should. Further, I am really, really tired of the insistence on applying fines to corporations that violate safety protocols. Fines can be paid and the accounting departments can work it out so the company doesn't suffer much, but apply jail terms to these bastards, and I suspect they'll change their ways.

So, I am not saying your idea is unworkable, and I am not saying I'm against it. I am suggesting that since we DO have privately owned industries, we need our government agencies to have the teeth to really bite 'em when necessary. To be able to shut down a mine for repeated ventilation failures. To be able to throw the bums in jail for taking economic shortcuts. To be able to do more than merely assess fines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I definitely believe that is an interim solution.
The problem is that when you shut it down, you put a lot of people out of work and out on the street as a lot of these mines own the housing for their workers. I say offer to buy these mines from the owners let's say in lieu of prosecution and prison terms for them and forgive the fines. Then let the government go in and operate them instead using the corporate model but with the people as shareholders. It doesn't matter if it's the State government or Federal government, but it should be done. In Chile, the government was gradually buying up the stock. The State owned 51% of the stock already when my dad retired in 1961. Of course things got crazy when they had the coup in 1971 but Pinochet did not return the mines to the American companies, so today they are completely state owned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Morbius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Out of work is bad, but temporary.
Dead is permanent.

I get what you're saying, though. Good points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Well, I did a search using Google, and this is what I found
It seems this nationalization was reversed, I did a Google search, and found this website

http://www.icsg.org/

If you click on the World Copper Factbook, you get a PDF file with a lot of information. And in page 49 of this booklet, which was issued in 2009, it says the largest copper mine in the world is in Chile. It is owned by a consortium of multinational mining companies headed by BHP Biliton. If you look down the list, you will see Anglo American also owns a very large mine. Others involved in the country include Antofagasta Holdings, Rio Tinto, Nippon, Mitsui...lots of large multinationals.

Just to check, I also read about the aftermath of the recent earthquake, using google. It seems these large companies issued statements regarding the shape of their respective mines and other facilities in Chile. Which means that, as of 2010, the copper industry in Chile seems to be, in part, in the hands of very large corporations.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. There are private mining interests such as Spence is owned by BHP Bilton.
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 05:59 PM by Cleita
http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/spence_copper/

http://www.akersolutions.com/NR/exeres/EA3E7A62-382B-40FF-9BAE-85AAC0F97652,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published

The Atacama is riddled with mines, large and small, not all are copper mines owned by various private interests many international as well as national interests.

Codelco is still national as this article about a union strike in January in the Chuquicamata mine testifies, which is the largest mine in the world and my old home town.
http://www.santiagotimes.cl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17943:chile-copper-miners-begin-indefinite-strike-at-codelcos-chuquicamata-mine&catid=27:mining-and-copper&Itemid=50

Codelco is a corporation and is run like a corporation with the exception that the shareholders are the people of Chile and the profits go to them for health care, education and other programs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #56
121. But that's not the most productive mine according to the list I saw.
The claim for the most production is the BHP Biliton mine. Maybe that mine you are discussing was big, but it's being depleted. As I said, the copper industry in Chile may have a national company (Codelco), but there are quite a few big players who are private. Therefore your example really doesn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
51. Which other countries do you mean?
There are different ways to go about this. Which countries do you have in mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Look at my post #41.
I chose Codelco because they took over the mines that the Americans owned in Chile and one of them was one I grew up in. They have a high record of safety too, receiving awards for their high standards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Then you should look at what I found using google
Also, since you seem to be from Chile, are you proposing they nationalize companies in Chile? Or some other country? Are you in the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. I am a born American who lives in the USA, but lived in Chile in
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 06:08 PM by Cleita
an American owned copper mining camp since I was a child. Since I have witnessed this history since I was a child I believe the time has come for us to nationalize our national resources for the benefit of the people of the United States, just like Chile nationalized many of theirs. We don't have room anymore for a bunch of corporations, owned by billionaires who many times are not Americans, but benefit from our resources including our military to become even richer, while the people of the USA go without health care and a decent education system. Chile is trying to get back it's resources but isn't ready for the United States to engineer another coup so they can't shake all the exploiters off at once.

Personally, I have always been appalled at how primitive and dangerous our mines are here in the continental United States. It's time to make them of the people and for the people and in order to do that we have to make the government take action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Maybe this is caused by childhood trauma?
So maybe you have a problem caused by childhood trauma? As I pointed out, it seems the Chileans reversed this nationalization you mention. The information at hand shows the industy in Chile isn't all in state hands.

I also have an observation: where they exist, state owned companies are usually worst violators of safety and environmental rules. They are also extremely inefficient. I can't say who I am, but I consult for state companies sometimes. They are usually poorly managed, and what I see is conditions much worse than they are in private company operations. Why does this happen? Because a cozy relationship evolves whereby the state regulator and inspector function finds itself unable to do its job properly, since the state loses profits when the regulations are implemented.

This of course is a disfunction, because long term most of these regulations do cut costs, but management is short sighted, and politicians want cash now, so they can provide bread and circus to the masses, and win the elections. Or, if the government is run by dictatorship, for example as it was in the Soviet Union, then it gets even worse. As you will probably remember, the Soviet Union was famous for Chernobyl, the Aral Sea disaster, and other unmentionable environmental and labor safety crimes. All done by state owned enterprises.

You see, what you are observing is human nature. Nationalization doesn't improve the situation, it tends to make it a lot worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. They have not reversed it. The state owned mines exist today, in spite of the
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 07:00 PM by Cleita
earthquakes. Your source in Portugal has so much wrong, I don't know where to begin. The Codelco mines have received awards for their record on safety, which is why the private mines are trying to compete with them by raising their standards. Read one of the links I provided you on the goals the Spence mine is trying to achieve. You don't see any of that in the USA because there is no competition with well funded, unionized, state owned mines.

I don't know where your observation comes from unless it's in China, but even with the mining disaster of last week, the Chinese miners were able to rescue 115 of the miners after a week. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtv5g3SogRCpX-mQE8lqlqDkRVYQD9ETMAF00 Also, thanks for bringing up the examples of totalitarian police states as contrary to democracies with a strong middle class and unionized working class. Although psst, if you haven't noticed American is evolving into a fascist police state and we'd better be on top of it.

Of course our mines are so cozy and safe and unionized we certainly don't want to be Chernobyl. Oops that's a nuke plant and ours are so safe too. You should see the brochure I just got from our local one with all the things we need to do to escape, just in case. Never mind that we are sitting on two earthquake faults but private industry, like in PG & E does things so much better.

btw All our dams were built by the Army Corp of Engineers a government agency. As a whole they didn't do a bad job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #60
104. Astronomers indicate giant meteorite headed towards Earth
OK, now that I got your attention... :-)

my "source in Portugal" is a Mining group. Now let's set the record straight: According to the chart I quoted, there are lots of multinationals operating in Chile. You said all of the indutry was nationalized. Maybe it was nationalized at one point. But the policy was REVERSED. This means they changed their minds, and allowed private industry to operate copper mines again. I sure hope you do yield this point.

I really don't care if the Codelco (ie State Owned) mines have awards for safety. The point I wanted to make regarding Chile's copper industry was that the nationalization had been REVERSED.

Claiming the Chinese coal mining industry is safe is like claiming Fox News is fair and balanced, or that Rush Limbug is for Medical Care for all. That claim is so absurd, I won't even bother to comment about it further, the readers can find about the Chinese coal mining safety record by using google and "Coal mine disaster".

We're discussing nationalization policy. I will not change the topic to discuss US politics in general. All I can say I think all of your presidents are war criminals. Now that I made that small pointed remark:

Cherbobyl took place under Soviet Union rule. The worst industrial disaster in the civilized world (ie the OECD) doesn't even come close, by any stretch of the most feverish imagination, to Chernobyl's impact. The only event I can think about that's close to it is Bophal, in India - and that was caused by a western multinational in a third world country with lax regulations. As I said, the performance of regulators in a nationalized setting is WORSE. The record is clear.

If you are near a nuclear plant sitting on a fault, that is your problem. Until you can show me a nuclear plant disaster even close to Chernobyl, all you are discussing is the POTENTIAL for disasters. And if you want to discuss POTENTIAL, then we can discuss the same issue for the garbage left behind by the Soviets, or the environmental disaster that we found in places like Kazakhstan. If you want to educate yourself a bit, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_Kazakhstan

Finally, I'd like to point out something called cognitive dissonance. A term I learned from a person here in DU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

If you read all about it, you'll see that sometimes people fail to absorb information because they just can't match the new data to what they already "know". In your case you already "know" nationalized industry is better than private industry, ergo you are a communist and won't accept my "known fact" that it's the other way around, private industry is more efficient, easier to regulate, and more likely to respect the environment and safety regulations than state-owned industry.

Remember "The Matrix" and "V", things are usually not what they seem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
59. I'm not sure that nationalizing stuff is the answer.
I guess I'm of the opinion that strictly-enforced regulations would work. I would, however, be OK with a forfeiture of control once a company accrues a certain* number of safety violations.

* I'm not in any position to judge which sort of safety violations are what you'd consider "life-threatening". I'm not talking about a dude who refuses to wear the proper safety equipment; I'm thinking more on a larger scale. Certainly, the latest tragedy doesn't fall into that category.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Regulating the workplace is only one side of it. What I'm looking at is
taking the resources and using them for the people, for education, health care and other infrastructure and social programs. Why should billionaires get all the profits and we the people go without. I believe the natural resources of a nation belong to the people for the people to profit from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. I get what you're saying.
and I don't disagree with most of your premise...

I guess you could call me a socialist who believes in regulated capitalism. We're probably not on the same page, but we're on a similar page (if that makes any sense). It doesn't bother me when people make money, UNLESS they're making money by putting their employees at risk - risks that could be averted.

Based on past transgressions, the decision-makers of Massey Energy should be tried for manslaughter.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. I think the mine should be nationalized and the owners put on trial for not
only manslaughter but gross negligence and failure to fix the problems they were fined for. Even if it's only to take care of the problems and then maybe turn it back to the private sector, but I still believe resources belong to the people not private interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. I don't know what the "perfect fix" should be.
Again, I don't really disagree with you, but nothing happens overnight. For now, we need to set more stringent regulations, and hold those who flaunt those regulations accountable.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
66. And put some big teeth into OSHA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
67. MY land and MY trees get along perfectly well without anyone else's intrusion.
I don't know what you know about mining, but you don't know beans about forestry. If you consider it an "extraction industry" like mining and oil and gas drilling, then you'd nationalize fishing and farming as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. Fishing yes, and I used to work for the Forest Service so a little knowledge
Edited on Tue Apr-06-10 11:49 PM by Cleita
rubbed off although I felt they weren't right about a lot of stuff. However, I think botanists who study these things can set them right. Farming falls in between. I happen to know and have experienced a lot more than you might believe. btw no one is talking about your land and your trees but the national forests that belong to everyone not just the lumber companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. Less than 29% of timber-producing land in the US is public property.
As much as I want all forest land in the US to be properly managed, not just for timber production but also for biodiversity preservation and ecosystem services, simply ending timber sales in the National Forests isn't going to do that. And there was nothing in the OP that specified National Forests rather than private lands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #74
84. I don't remember saying anything about ending timber sales.
There are sales that can be made if harvested in an ecological, sustainable manner. That will require nationalization of the lumber companies working on federal and state lands. Clear cutting not only creates temporary meadows, but it pollutes streams and other waterways. The lumber companies care very little about the workers. But surely you know that. Also, you know that the feds don't ask the lumber companies for market value of the lumber but a lot less. I want them to start getting what the lumber is worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
68. Completely agree! I'd like to add it to my list:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-10 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #68
71. Nationalization of natural resources to be managed and protected by the
government of the people of the United States or something like that. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #71
119. Works for me.
I'd also add, no private ownership of utilities like water and electricity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
75. Here's a picture of Codelco's Cuquicamata open-pit copper mine . . .
Edited on Wed Apr-07-10 01:21 AM by Petrushka
. . . a picture for those who aren't interested in booking a tour to visit what's supposedly
the world's largest copper mine, the world's largest copper mine where tourists are overwhelmed
by everything, everything's so HUGE: the pit (one of the most amazing holes in the world), the
trucks, the factories and (mustn't forget!) the slag heaps, slag heaps that prove more important
than the people who receive 24-hour notice to get out of town because their homes must, in the
interests of efficiency, be buried under all that slag:




Reminds me of those mountaintop removal minesites in downstate West Virginia. Maybe, by nationalizing
the coal mines, West Virginians would someday be able to brag about our overwhelming slag heaps
instead of our beautiful hills and mountains!



Here's a link to one tourist's feeling about that copper mine in Chile:

http://realtravel.com/e-146398-chuquicamata_entry-feeli...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #75
85. Hey, I learned to drive in there when it was in American hands.
I lived there. Anaconda Copper, a private American Corporation dug the pit and mined it for fifty + years. Not only that, it's in the middle of the Atacama desert, in a place where it only rains sprinkles every couple of years, so it's not damaging any ecological system. There is nothing that lives there except people. You know there is an open pit exactly like it dug in Montana by the same company in the middle of pristine wilderness. Go to Butte Montana some time and see what private American enterprise has done there. Sorry honey but you can't take back the pit. It existed long before the mine was nationalized. The big difference now is that the people of Chile benefit from the sale of copper not foreign companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #85
93. "There is nothig that lives there except people." and, where Money is the name of the game . . .
Edited on Wed Apr-07-10 02:48 PM by Petrushka
. . . people's lives mean nothing.

People do "benefit", however. At least, Codelco gives them a choice---a 24-hour notice
to skedaddle or be buried, right along with their homes, under a mountain of mine waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #93
102. Link please! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. The link is up-thread .. . . at the bottom of Reply #75 . . .
Edited on Wed Apr-07-10 04:55 PM by Petrushka
. . . but, if you can't digest it all, here's a little taste of what one tourist wrote:

"Chuqui town is being buried, literally, by the mine. Because gas prices have gone up so much, the trucks that haul the waste rocks from the bottom of the pit (which is at least a kilometer deep, if I remember correctly) are becoming prohibitively expensive to operate beyond a certain radius. So instead of trucking the useless rock out of town, Codelco made the executive decision to bury Chuqui town instead. All the residents are being moved from Chuqui to Calama, which is a good twenty minutes away. Moreover, they're being given 24 hours' notice in which to pack up and move out. They have new homes awaiting them in Calama, but there's a huge uproar because Calama is a relatively dangerous city in which to live, whereas Chuquicamata is a close-knit, well-established community."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
77. Why didn't you propose this idea back when the Republicans controlled all three branches of gov't?
Oh, right. Because it would have meant putting the Republican party in charge of ALL OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE COUNTRY.

Be careful what you wish for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #77
87. They were in charge and they sold them to the highest bidder. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #87
113. WTF?
Do you think natural resources only exist on federal lands? What's being proposed here would give them the ability to use the entire apparatus of the resource extraction industry in any way they saw fit, and NO that is NOT the way it works now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. I'm for some private enterprise just for competition.
It's the mother lodes, the big sources that I want nationalized. That revenue from them should not go into private bank accounts. They belong to the people as a whole to be used for the needs of the people for health care, education, etc.. Hey, nobody minds if a small company has a small mine somewhere, or someone who wants to sell some trees on their land to a lumber company. The government probably shouldn't waste their time with small potatoes like those. As far as those coal mines in WVA the feds really need to go in and nationalize them if for no other reason than to clean up their act and once they meet safety and environmental standards turn them back to the private sector if that's the way the people want it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indi Guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 03:35 AM
Response to Original message
82. Good Luck...
You may as well try and nationalize our currency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #82
88. Sadly, that needs to be done too.
I think the problem is trying to get people to understand that government by the people and for the people is not the same as government by the corporations and for the corporations. Although, now that corporations have personhood, I don't know where that is going to lead. All I know is that we have to fight back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #88
95. Where have you been? Corporations have been recognized as "persons" since the 1800s! (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. Really? You post a lot of weird statements with no links.
It turns out your $600 hammers assertion came out of your rear end too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #99
109. Considering that you're obviously incapable of doing a google.com search for yourself --->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

If it takes too much energy for you to click on that link, one of the facts you'll find there is:

"In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment.<1>"

And . . . if you like, you can look for the legal definition
of "person" in the Black's Law Dictionary. There's a free
online version available to people who don't expect others to
do their homework for them.




:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. Oh, I'm done.
When the conversation gets reduced to someone hurling insults I don't repy anymore. Buh bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. Oh, dear! And I thought we were simply playing "tit-for-tat" . . . guess I was wrong . . .
. . . to have imagined you didn't mean to insult me with that nasty
remark likening me to Rush Limbaugh & Fox News commentators.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #99
111. Sorry you (and the other guy) don't understand hyperbole. If you did, you might have laughed.
No sweat!


:silly:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
96. state ownership doesn't guarantee safety
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #96
101. Again, comparing totalitarian dictatorships to how democracies do it
isn't really a good comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. Nationalization tends to be linked to the evolution of a dictatorship.
This is why communism is so bad, it gives the state such a strong hand, it degenerates into a tyranny, usually involving personality worship of a leader (or sometimes a "party oligarchy", or both) who wants to hang on to power for a long time, and is willing to use force to keep it.

In the 21st century, what we observe is that as countries become more democratic, they also move away from communism and extreme socialism such as practiced in North Korea, Cuba, and other nations known for their lack of democracy, lack of a free press, and tendency to commit human rights abuses. Or maybe the two are linked, one could say. Democratization is linked to an expanding private industry and commerce, and a large middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #105
114. Try this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

It seems a lot of the countries that stand out with nationalization of industry are hardly dictatorships. Sweden stands out, but so do others, so I don't think totalitarian dictatorships are the only way to nationalism. Also, communism itself is not bad. It's the totalitarian dictatorships of Soviet Russia, China and North Korea that are bad. Communism as a political system is too extreme to the left though to be a good way to govern, just like fascism to the right is too extreme. Although we seem to be headed that way.

However, I'm only suggesting that natural resources be nationalized, not everything. You know that all Alaskans share in the oil revenues of what is pumped in that state. Even Sara Palin didn't dare touch that check that every Alaskan gets for the oil that is sold from there when she was Governor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. I hear Sweden doesn't have much that's nationalized
Thanks for the Wikipedia link. You know, I almost posted it for you yesterday, but it helps others. :-)

I read your post and smiled, because as it turns out Sweden doesn't have much that's nationalized. Check this wikipedia article:

"The 20 largest Sweden-registered companies by turnover in 2007 were Volvo, Ericsson, Vattenfall, Skanska, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget, Electrolux, Volvo Personvagnar, TeliaSonera, Sandvik, Scania, ICA, Hennes & Mauritz, Nordea, Preem, Atlas Copco, Securitas, Nordstjernan and SKF.<12> Sweden's industry is overwhelmingly in private control; unlike some other industrialized Western countries, such as Austria and Italy, state owned enterprises were always of minor importance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden

Regarding Alaska, I checked it out and it seems the oil industry is in private hands. Digging a little more, I did find the state of Alaska mails a check to residents every year, rather than charging them a tax. This is because there are so few Alaskans, and they produce so much oil, they have enough money to spare. So it's a reverse tax, you may say. So your point is somewhat irrelevant.

However, it did give me some ideas. Here in Venezuela we got a lot of oil, and the government tends to waste the money they get from it. So we should probably copy it, just have private industry, tax the hell out of them, and then have the government give us the cash. Hell, the way crime is around here, we could then get together, and hire our own police, and we could have the community association build a clinic and rent office space to doctors, and we could even have our own gas fired generating plant. This is a really good idea I'll tell the guys in the opposition about. It'll go over great, and we can use it in the September elections. Something like cash grants to people so they can get things done, rather than letting these worthless politicians sell us into voting for them to get nothing back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #116
120. Oh now you are making sense. You are in Venezuela.
Of course you don't like what Chavez is doing with the oil money you think belongs to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. I think?
Well, I prefer it if you don't tell me what I think. Let me tell you what I think. Then you tell me what you think, and so on.

I don't like Chavez because he's incompetent. The money he wastes belongs to the state, by law. I think we should change the law, so the state gives some of it directly to us, since the state happens to be so incompetent. I'm not going to turn this discussion into one about Venezuela. Go to the Latin America forum, and you can read all about it. We have a very intense discussion going on. :-)

Now, if you want to post additional comments about nationalized versus privatized industry, please go ahead. As Clint Eastwood said, "make my day", I love the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #122
125. Okay, back to Sweden.
You might find this interesting.
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/8908

The state as a company owner

The Swedish state is an important company owner in Sweden. The Swedish
Government Offices administer 55 companies, of which 42 are wholly owned
and 13 partly owned. These companies represent substantial values and are
large employers. Furthermore, they are ultimately the common property of all
Swedish taxpayers. The state therefore has a considerable responsibility to be an
active and professional owner.

The Government´s overarching objective is that these companies should create value and, where
applicable, comply with the special societal interests. It is important that the state manages its
ownership role in a responsible way. As long as these companies are owned by the state, they shall
continue to be actively managed with the creation of value as the overarching objective. State
control must also be clear and well-focused. A professional and structured board nomination
process together with effective and active work on the board are important components of this
work. Other important tools of owner control are transparency and an efficient capital structure.
Part of being an active and responsible owner is to divest companies when there is no longer a
reason for continued ownership.

In 2006 the aggregated turnover for the state-owned companies amounted to SEK 339 billion and
the net profit amounted to SEK 55.3 billion. The dividend of the companies for the financial year
2006 amounted to just over SEK 37 million. The value of the state-owned companies administered
totalled around SEK 770 billion in June 2007.

Like other companies in the market, the state-owned companies encounter stiff competition and a
rapidly changing business environment. The Government´s ownership administration shall
therefore be clear and open and continuously adapted to the increased and changing demands
made.

The state-owned companies are subject to the same legislation as privately-owned companies.
Decisions concerning the companies comply with administrative rules at the Swedish Government
Offices. When considering matters, the regulatory framework for public access and secrecy are
applied, among other things.

Like other company owners the government has different tools to influence the companies. In the
State ownership policy the government present its position on certain important principles on the
administration of the state-owned companies, among other things the view on the AGM, the board,
the financial reporting, the executive management and their remunerations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #114
117. I noticed that India was on the list of countries that had nationalized coal mines
Here's an analysis of their safety record from a few years back:
http://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~amandal/coal_accident.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #117
123. Of course you know this doesn't have to be. So you are implying that
this would be the model we follow? I doubt it unless the Republicans run things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
protocol rv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #117
124. Good contribution, welcome to the debate
And I'd like to add this about India's coal mining industry, quoting Mr. H C Gupta, Secretary, Ministry of Coal

"Mr. Gupta informed that in the last years, no importance was given to underground coal mining. But in the new 11th plan period, special importance will be given through long haul methods etc. This would invite technology through the private sector.

He also mentioned that all coal block allotments for the power and steel sector will be done through International Competitive Bidding tenders and private sector would be invited to participate in the same. As of date 180 coal blocks with 40 Billion Tons reserves have been allotted. From these, 25 Billion tons had been allotted for the power sector alone. NTPC has been given large coal blocks from these with a production of 15-20 MT. NTPC will look at outsourcing the production works through the private industry. This way, he reaffirmed members that the role of the private sector was inevitable in the coal sector."

http://www.asiaeconomywatch.co.uk/2008/03/25/indian-coal-secretary-favors-private-sector-involvement-in-coal-mining/

As you know, India is the most populous democracy in the world, with a growing economy which averages about 6-7 % per year over the last few years. THis is largely due to the trend towards privatization and liberation of industry from excessive "socialist style" regulation. While Indian society is still flawed, and includes both religious conflict as well as abuse of minorities such as the "Untouchables", it is definitely getting better.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #124
126. It was a gotcha contribution and adds nothing to the debate, but
Edited on Wed Apr-07-10 06:27 PM by Cleita
we already know where your politics lie. You really don't care about that money belonging to the government as long as it's conveniently transferred to your ownership class's off shore bank accounts when convenient. What you care about is that he's spending it on the needs of the common people and that rubs your class the wrong way. I spent many hours in South America having tea with well off South Americans and they all had the same smug arguments about how incompetent any leader was that wasn't their anointed leader and how the government can't fall into the hands of the working class people who don't know how things run. Just be grateful Chavez hasn't done to the patrones what Castro did to the elite class who owned everything in Cuba.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
118. Not to mention the "Federal" Reserve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #118
128. You know, I always thought the Federal Reserve was federal until
recently. I thought they were the safety valve that kept the banks honest.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC