"DBWI: Hypercapitalist Chavez initiates another hostile takeover"

"Chavez seizes Cargill Venezuela unit

CARACAS (Reuters) – Chief Executive and President Hugo Chavez seized a local unit of American food giant Cargill on Wednesday and threatened to initiate a hostile takeover of Venezuela's largest private company, Polar, as he demanded that the company end it's programme of subsided rice to poor areas.

The clash with the food companies came less than three weeks after Chavez, a staunch American ally who has privatized swaths of the Venezuelan economy, won a referendum on allowing him to run for reelection.

"I warn you this revolution means business," said Chavez.

The anti-leftist president is popular among the rich and forieng investors for pressuring previously inefficent publically owned companies companies to compete with foreign business after the landmark AFTA signed last year. This has resulted in cheaper goods and a sharp decrease in government programs that provide subsidized food in city slums.

In recent days Chavez aggressively used his corpation, the Private Sector United Venezeula (PSUV) which controls about 50% of Venezeualan assets to aggressively initiate a hostile takevoer of the Polar Rice Company after accusing the food industry of 'distorting the free market' which has resulted, according to Chavez in a 'net decrease in the economic welfare and a relative increase in the dead-weight loss to society caused by this nefarious, counter-revolutionary plot' .

"Prepare the assets, we are going to buy out Cargill. We are not going to tolerate this," Chavez said.

It was not clear if Cargill's other Venezuelan food units would be affected. Cargill Venezuela did not answer calls to their offices.

Polar's ousted CEO, who previously controlled the country's largest private sector employer and produces and distributes everything from beer to flour, has vowed to take legal action over the rice mill takeovers.

"

...Another hostile takeover in just weeks. Seriously man, if he keeps up the way he's going he's going to end up owning all of South America...

Is there any antitrust legislation that can be used to prevent this?

(OOC: Inspired by: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=117820)
 

wormyguy

Banned
Well, he's done a good job, given that Venezuelan GDP has quadrupled in the last 11 years under his rule.
 
OOC: Right now, China is averaging 9% a year, and they aren't nearly as Capitalist as ATL Venezuela.

OOC: China averaged 10% a year from 1990-2007. Their economy, currently, is a screaming overheated mess; look what's happening to the south coast once things started downturning (hint - the economy imploded). And that was from, essentially, a standing start as a terrible communist state with the world's largest pool of untapped labour and massive natural resources. It was this huge freak - nobody else came close to that or ever has. Venezuala has none of those advantages. 13% a year for a decade is impossible.

And hypercapitalism =/= enormous growth rates. Enormous growth rates are products of a country shifting gears really fast - as with China. Capitalism just ensures decent average growth, not crazy 13%/annum growth.
 

wormyguy

Banned
OOC: China averaged 10% a year from 1990-2007. Their economy, currently, is a screaming overheated mess; look what's happening to the south coast once things started downturning (hint - the economy imploded). And that was from, essentially, a standing start as a terrible communist state with the world's largest pool of untapped labour and massive natural resources. It was this huge freak - nobody else came close to that or ever has. Venezuala has none of those advantages. 13% a year for a decade is impossible.
OOC: Supposedly, they still are growing 8% this year. I think that if a closed, corrupt economy like Venezuela were applied an extreme dose of libertarianism, it might achieve that kind of growth. Libertarianism is unique in that no one has actually ever tried it. It might be impossible to lift 150 pounds with one arm tied behind your back (all that burdensome regulation), but many people can do it with both arms.
 
OOC: Supposedly, they still are growing 8% this year. I think that if a closed, corrupt economy like Venezuela were applied an extreme dose of libertarianism, it might achieve that kind of growth.

OOC: Oh, sure, a massive capitalist switch in Venezuala would probably see some big returns. But not 10%/year - China has some freaky weird conditions there, like, for starters, a billion dirt-poor peasants to put into factories. 6-7%/year for a decade would be IMHO about as good as Venezuela could do (assuming a Venezuela that looks anything at all like OTL's turn-of-the-millenia Venezuela).

Libertarianism is unique in that no one has actually ever tried it. It might be impossible to lift 150 pounds with one arm tied behind your back (all that burdensome regulation), but many people can do it with both arms.
OOC: ...Ah. Right. This explains much.

I'll just say the following:

  • 19th century England and the US. Also Somalia.
  • Also, it's hardly "unique" in that sense - go talk to CommunistWizard about the number of times communism has been tried. ;)
  • Your metaphor is a bit weird - more to the point it's not there to prevent you from having 13% growth rates, it's there to prevent you from sending 6-year-olds to pull coal-trucks a half-a-mile underground (a traditional feature of laissez-faire economies).
 

wormyguy

Banned
19th century England and the US. Also Somalia.

Somalia =/= Libertarianism. There is obviously no governing ideology in Somalia, but if you define economic libertarianism as having as few restrictions to doing business as possible, then Somalia is among the least Libertarian. It is probably harder to start a business or to do business in Somalia than in any other country except North Korea (maybe even including North Korea, since small farmer's markets are at least allowed there. In Somalia, some warlord would burn your farm, steal the contents of your store, and rape your wife.) As for 19th century England and the US, you mean the time period when they experienced the greatest economic gains in their entire history?;)

Also, it's hardly "unique" in that sense - go talk to CommunistWizard about the number of times communism has been tried. ;)
Find one country that self-identifies (or self-identified) as Libertarian.

Your metaphor is a bit weird - more to the point it's not there to prevent you from having 13% growth rates, it's there to prevent you from sending 6-year-olds to pull coal-trucks a half-a-mile underground (a traditional feature of laissez-faire economies).
:rolleyes: Find one Libertarian who actually believes that "6-year-olds" should "pull coal-trucks a half-a-mile underground." Anyone who actually believes that is a certified nutcase. As for that being "a traditional feature of laissez-faire economies," it was a "traditional feature" because, until recently, the average life expectancy was only about 50 or so. If the breadwinner of the family died of cholera or smallpox or any of various other diseases that people were wont to die young from back then, then the children would have to work for the family to continue to earn a living. In more recent times, advances in medical technology have meant that people live much longer and no longer have to worry nearly so much about deadly illness, so children no longer are put to work for that reason. Anyways, 12 year-olds are far less likely to collapse from exhaustion while pulling coal trucks than 6 year-olds. :p


Libertarians do not want some Dickensian characature of Victorian England where starving orphans operate dangerous machinery in dark factories for tuppence a day, while their greedy Capitalist boss takes a swim in his swimming pool full of diamonds while eating truffles and foie gras off a gold tray held up by another starving orphan. They merely want the government to end programs and taxation policies that actively restrict long-term economic growth, which is something ultimately good for everyone. (For instance, the parents of said 6-year old, who, with their larger income, no longer have to force him to work in the coal mine).
 
  • 19th century England and the US.

OOC: I hate to drag this too far off topic but...hardly. By the late 19th century, both had too much of an addiction for central banking to be really 'libertarian'. Liberal of a sort, I suppose, but not libertarians. Gotta remember, libertarians are of the night-watchmen state type, not supply-sider 'We gotta do everything we can to help producers' types. Britain, especially, was all about government granted monopoly powers and a very high spending state. The US did it better, but it still tucked away into the (seemingly) warm embrace of trade protectionism, as well as capture regulation (where government regulatory power is used by a private firm or group of firms to gain an unfair advantage over competitors and possible competitors).

Not to mention the slavery and the imperialism. That's not very libertarian at all. The very opposite, in fact.
 
Libertarians do not want some Dickensian characature of Victorian England where starving orphans operate dangerous machinery in dark factories for tuppence a day, while their greedy Capitalist boss takes a swim in his swimming pool full of diamonds while eating truffles and foie gras off a gold tray held up by another starving orphan.

OOC: Sounds alright to me...
 
I can't think of any other libertarians on this board... there probably are a few, but pretty much everybody in my mental folder of "AH.com libertarians" seems to have joined the party.

I've really got better things to do right now (like homework) than tilt at windmills I've got no chance of changing the minds of, so let me just say: I like minimum wage laws. I like unemployment insurance. I like knowing that if a car hits me as I cross the street tomorrow, my family will not have to go broke in the process of resetting my ribs. I like being paid in cash rather than company scrip. I like knowing that the tap water I drink hasn't had mercury dumped in it. I like living in a country whose economy isn't imploding one year out of three. (How many downturns has the US economy had since 1933? How many did it have pre-1933? which were worse?) I like not working from the age of six (and whether or not any of you fine gentlemen want it, it's what would happen; kids are cheaper to employ). Fortunately for me, most other people like these things too, so I lose very little sleep worrying that I'll wake up and discover you people have succeeded in turning the clock back to the wonderful 1890s.

(Oh, and one other point: the invisible hand is great and wonderful (and totally indifferent to the humanity, but bracket that for now). I can do antything. Any problem, it can solve. Except the government. The government, for reasons never really explained, is unlike everything else in the universe. It is kryptonite. :rolleyes:)

See you all in some other thread. :)
 
I can't think of any other libertarians on this board... there probably are a few, but pretty much everybody in my mental folder of "AH.com libertarians" seems to have joined the party.

I've really got better things to do right now (like homework) than tilt at windmills I've got no chance of changing the minds of, so let me just say: I like minimum wage laws. I like unemployment insurance. I like knowing that if a car hits me as I cross the street tomorrow, my family will not have to go broke in the process of resetting my ribs. I like being paid in cash rather than company scrip. I like knowing that the tap water I drink hasn't had mercury dumped in it. I like living in a country whose economy isn't imploding one year out of three. (How many downturns has the US economy had since 1933? How many did it have pre-1933? which were worse?) I like not working from the age of six (and whether or not any of you fine gentlemen want it, it's what would happen; kids are cheaper to employ). Fortunately for me, most other people like these things too, so I lose very little sleep worrying that I'll wake up and discover you people have succeeded in turning the clock back to the wonderful 1890s.

(Oh, and one other point: the invisible hand is great and wonderful (and totally indifferent to the humanity, but bracket that for now). I can do antything. Any problem, it can solve. Except the government. The government, for reasons never really explained, is unlike everything else in the universe. It is kryptonite. :rolleyes:)

See you all in some other thread. :)

I respond to this with:

OOC: I hate to drag this too far off topic but...hardly. By the late 19th century, both had too much of an addiction for central banking to be really 'libertarian'. Liberal of a sort, I suppose, but not libertarians. Gotta remember, libertarians are of the night-watchmen state type, not supply-sider 'We gotta do everything we can to help producers' types. Britain, especially, was all about government granted monopoly powers and a very high spending state. The US did it better, but it still tucked away into the (seemingly) warm embrace of trade protectionism, as well as capture regulation (where government regulatory power is used by a private firm or group of firms to gain an unfair advantage over competitors and possible competitors).

Not to mention the slavery and the imperialism. That's not very libertarian at all. The very opposite, in fact.
 
Personally, I think that any other leader would be flirting with electoral suicide, but Chavez does have a very popular appeal to the masses having been 'one of them.'

I think somethings gotta break one day though, but the Venezeulan Labour Party will probably be languishing in opposition for quite a while!
 
Top