mmr –

…There’s no reason for these guys to invest in the local economy when the local econmy gives them no incentive to do so, ie, won’t force them to do so. And if they do, then the company will just take their ball and go play with the neighbor. In the end, it’s the country that’s desparate for the company’s presence, not the other way around, because these countries aren’t getting together to present a unified front.

Hence Chavez; what happened to the Venezuelan oil industry? Or Morales and Bolivian hydrocarbons in total? These are the models towards which Mexico will trend, very easy since Pemex is already a state-owned company; it would be much more difficult to pull this off in a country like the U.S. because state-ownership is not embedded in culture or laws.

It behooves the foreign nationals to think wider, deeper, longer than the next quarter, particularly when it comes to oil. It is an illusion that the people need them more than these corporations need the people. Sustainable success requires embracing symbiosis.

I realize the thread is probably dead at this point, but I did want to mention something about Chavez. Friends of mine are Venezuelan expats, and they can’t stand the man. According to them, he’s just a populist leader and a demogogue; the leftist version of W, with just as much ability to listen to his detractors as our own dear leader. I don’t know the truth of the matter, I just know that my friends have contradicted most, if not all, of the reports that have come out of Venezuela about Chavez. As far as they’re concerned, he’s the reason they left.

Having said that, I agree with you, I think. It’s just that the idea of a nationalized labor union (or really, an internationalized labor union) is a bold stroke, and one sure to be castigated by the current media conglomerates that get their paychecks from the steady flow of cheap labor.

OT: why so many cats in left blogostan? I would have thought mostly dogs inhibited the left shpere being that cats are socially snobby and egotistical – much more of right wing bent. Is it just that cats are easier to maintain in liberal cities?
.

…There’s no reason for these guys to invest in the local economy when the local econmy gives them no incentive to do so, ie, won’t force them to do so. And if they do, then the company will just take their ball and go play with the neighbor. In the end, it’s the country that’s desparate for the company’s presence, not the other way around, because these countries aren’t getting together to present a unified front.

Hence Chavez; what happened to the Venezuelan oil industry? Or Morales and Bolivian hydrocarbons in total? These are the models towards which Mexico will trend, very easy since Pemex is already a state-owned company; it would be much more difficult to pull this off in a country like the U.S. because state-ownership is not embedded in culture or laws.

It behooves the foreign nationals to think wider, deeper, longer than the next quarter, particularly when it comes to oil. It is an illusion that the people need them more than these corporations need the people. Sustainable success requires embracing symbiosis.

mmr 109 — we already are intervening in MX. Every American corporation that has transplanted operations to MX has an effect on the economy there, as well as the politics. But should American corporations be doing this in the absence of conscious discussion at a meta-level about the impact of American corporate investment in MX?

This is why I mentioned G8 and Davos; this is where meta-conversation must occur. These American corporations aren’t just American, per se; they are incorporated in Delaware, but function globally. They are at risk of losing their investments if the stability of a country in which they have facilities or in which they count on sales should happen to to tank. The dialogue about risk management is already happening without us, at a layer below the corporations, and without us at the G8 and Davos meta-level. What I envision is a discussion about cultural investment; corporations can either expose themselves to losses due to instability, or invest the money to improve the local economies in which they do business. What would improved education do to Mexico, for example? What would improved infrastructure do? Could the network of foreign companies that already exist in Mexico have a deeper dialogue beyond improving profitability?

My understanding of American corporate intervention into Latin American politics is that the history has been less than beneficial to the natives. Sugar companies, the Panama canal, the current situation in Venezuela– most American corporate interests can only see to the next quarter, not investing 20 years into the future. That’s why our track record in Latin America has been so bad, traditionally, in my opinion. There’s no reason for these guys to invest in the local economy when the local econmy gives them no incentive to do so, ie, won’t force them to do so. And if they do, then the company will just take their ball and go play with the neighbor. In the end, it’s the country that’s desparate for the company’s presence, not the other way around, because these countries aren’t getting together to present a unified front.

This may be what you mean by Davos (and I must admit to being ignorant of the term). The idea, and I wish I could take credit for it, or assign credit, but I don’t remember where I heard it, that countries whose sole good is labor all band together to generate a labor exchange. Just as hard goods, like oil, pork bellies, etc, all have exchanges, those countries get together and commoditize their labor, and then set their prices accordingly. As there’s OPEC for oil, there’d be something like LPC (Labor and Production Consortium). If you want the cheap labor, you’d have to go through the LPC. That way, if a company just wants to take their ball and go play with the neighbor, the neighbor will offer them the same price.

My point is, the only way to remove the advantage of a multinational corporation’s ability to select the location of their facilities based solely on the cheapness of labor is to remove that cheapness from the equation altogether. The LPC, as I imagine it, would change the rules of the game; companies that put down roots somewhere would suddenly have to consider relocation costs and costs of allowing local shabbiness as part of their cost/benefit equations.

Just a quirky aside, but does anyone else think about the Martian in the Bugs Bunny cartoons every time the pelonium radiation poisoning story comes up? “It’s the ilonium q-32 space modulator.” I know, it’s not funny, the man died — but I keep hearing the newscasters do the story in the Marvin Martian voice in my head. (I clearly need more sleep…)

Where’s the Kaboom, there was supposed to be an earth shattering Kaboom.

This incident just reinforces my view that Putin is simply an evil bastard who never moved past his KGB origins. My long standing view is that if terrorists ever get possession of a nuclear weapon it will be because Putin gets tired of our “colored” revolutions and decides to give us something else to worry about.

John Casper @ 84

Wrt pulling out of Anbar, this might simply be bowing to pressure from the Saudi’s and Syria.

What is so odd about this is that just yesterday Bush was railing against the possibility of “terrorists” setting up safe havens in Iraq. This would seem to do exactly that and with al Qaeda no less since Anbar is where al Qaeda in Iraq is headquartered.

Oh, but it was Sa-ddam who had the al-Qaeda connection. Anbar, who knew about him? Let’s hope we don’t have to unseat Anbar. Oh, I forgot, we did it already. It was memorable. Like Guadalcanal.

This is why I mentioned G8 and Davos; this is where meta-conversation must occur. These American corporations aren’t just American, per se; they are incorporated in Delaware, but function globally. They are at risk of losing their investments if the stability of a country in which they have facilities or in which they count on sales should happen to to tank. The dialogue about risk management is already happening without us, at a layer below the G8-Davos, within the corporation(s) and without us at the G8 and Davos meta-level. What I envision is a discussion about cultural investment; corporations can either expose themselves to losses due to instability, or invest the money to improve the local economies in which they do business. What would improved education do to Mexico, for example? What would improved infrastructure do? Could the network of foreign companies that already exist in Mexico have a deeper dialogue beyond improving profitability?

edit: I forgot to add that Mexico is ripe for revolution once again, if you are following what has been happening in Oaxaca. It is only a matter of time before a de Silva, Chavez or Morales comes to power, if we do not begin the dialogue. And what then of immigration, legal or otherwise?

Yet another salvo from the xenophobes.
I have news for them,
get used to eating burritos, suckers.
This problem is not going away.
This is just the latest in a long history of immigration in this country.
The Irish.
The Chinese.
Just two examples of a wave of certain ethnicities immigrating into this country and being demonized.
Not only demonized but exploited as cheap labor.
I personally do not see a “fix” to this problem.The worlds population has exploded with fewer and fewer resources.People have to live, and they are naturally going to try and get to the best environment to do that.

Bustednuckles @ 49

John Casper @ 76

Thanks to twolf1 and others above, Per msnbc, Frist not running

I wonder if it had anything to do with that poll that came out the other day saying he was the least likable gooper?

I thought Foley won that award.