Congressional Oil spokesman goes after Citgo

February 26, 2006 7:45 AM

Congressional Oil spokesman goes after Citgo.In Washington, Texas Republican Congressman Joe Barton (R-ExxonMobil) has launched an investigation into Citgo. But he is not investigating whether any of the oil giants are engaging in price gouging at a time when gasoline and heating oil casts are skyrocketing. Instead Barton has set his sights on the only oil company that actually dared to lower its prices last year - at least for the poorest Americans. Last week Barton demanded the Venezuelan-owned company Citgo produce all records, minutes, logs, e-mails and even desk calendars related to the company’s novel program of supplying discounted heating oil to low-income communities in the United States. The Citgo program, which began late last year in Massachusetts and the South Bronx, provides oil at discounts as high as 60% off market price.
posted by mountainmambo (88 comments total)

This should come as a surpise to whom, exactly?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:53 AM on February 26, 2006

I don't think this is shocking, no. But I do think that some attention needs to be drawn to this story.
posted by mountainmambo at 7:57 AM on February 26, 2006

No worries. Texas will keep the poor of the Northeast warm.
posted by 3.2.3 at 8:11 AM on February 26, 2006

Can't have any upity socialists giving away things for free now can we... That would be bad for business.

Why does Hugh Chavez hate America? Oh.
posted by zpousman at 8:14 AM on February 26, 2006

Rep. Barton has helped me decide that as long as I've got to buy gas to get to work, then I'm going to buy it only at Citgo.

Here's how to find a store.

If you are planning a trip, you can find all the stores on your route.
posted by 3.2.3 at 8:22 AM on February 26, 2006

Yeah... altruism fucks up the market.
posted by j-urb at 8:26 AM on February 26, 2006

3.2.3 don't you think that's a little hasty? Hugo Chavez is a douchebag too, you know.
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:39 AM on February 26, 2006

Maybe so, but he's the douchebag that's helping to keep poor people from freezing in the winter. That puts him one up on the douchebag helping major oil companies maintain record profits.
posted by Grimgrin at 8:45 AM on February 26, 2006

If it were any other oil company, except maybe one based in Iran, the administration and its friends in Congress would have loved the idea and held it up as "Big Oil" being truly compassionate.

It is because the company is Venezuelan and Chavez is not a friend of W, it is terrible and deserves an investigation. Yes, Chavez is a douchebag, but not of a higher order than any other leaders the US does business with.
posted by birdherder at 8:48 AM on February 26, 2006

This story lends a whole new gloss to the term "contempt of Congress."
posted by rdone at 8:49 AM on February 26, 2006

I suppose the real question is - does he have anyone going against him that stands a realistic chance of defeating him. Is the Dem running against him smart enough to launch an attack ad along the lines of... "Barton launched and investigation into why Citgo helped keep poor families in New England from freezing or starving to death." (OK so thats a little dramatic but you get my point)
posted by SirOmega at 8:53 AM on February 26, 2006

this is the sound of 0 hands clapping
posted by nervousfritz at 8:56 AM on February 26, 2006

I would assume that half of our Congress is on bribes from defense contractors. (Nothing scientific, just demonstrating my cynicism and if I vote next year it will be our of habit). America is the best democracy money can buy of course...
posted by j-urb at 8:57 AM on February 26, 2006

I suppose the real question is - does he have anyone going against him that stands a realistic chance of defeating him.

Fighting Dem David T. Harris is opposing Joe Barton in Texas's Sixth district. Here's Harris's DKos diary on how he plans to take on Barton and how he thinks he can win.

You can send Harris money here.
posted by edverb at 9:04 AM on February 26, 2006

Barton launched and investigation into why Citgo helped keep poor families in New England from freezing or starving to death.

That is sure to get votes because Texas is all about compassion.
posted by srboisvert at 9:08 AM on February 26, 2006

IF Citgo has to produce documents, then so does Exxon-Mobil--about those secret meetings with Cheney pre-9/11.

Are there any laws against frivolous or harrassing Congressional actions?
posted by amberglow at 9:09 AM on February 26, 2006

I'm curious as to what the facts are concerning Chavez. There was a comment earlier about him being a douce, but I'm not even sure what that might refer to. I've certainly noticed a media bias against the guy, but as a person who is appealing to the people of his country by taking property from wealthy American companies, I'd kind of expect wealthy American companies not to like him.
posted by jefeweiss at 9:15 AM on February 26, 2006

I'm not entirely sure Chavez is a douchebag ... I'm not entirely sure I like him, either.

jefeweiss, you may want to peruse the previous threads on Senor Chavez.
posted by jefgodesky at 9:27 AM on February 26, 2006

poor families in New England from freezing or starving to death

See what happens when you let the gays marry each other?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 9:30 AM on February 26, 2006

Pot - Kettle - Black
posted by isopraxis at 9:32 AM on February 26, 2006

I'm curious as to what the facts are concerning Chavez. There was a comment earlier about him being a douche...

Basicaly he's a republican boogeyman. "The new Castro!"* He doesn't like the US, and that's not acceptable. After all, our foreign relations policy is "You'll like us or we'll fucking force you to like us."

The real atrocity is that democrats play along with this because they are reactionary wussies who all have to say "Us! We're patriotic, too! We hate him if he doesn't like us! Tie a yellow ribbon and pledge allegiance and all that! Vote us for us for being reactionary copycats!" instead of saying "Wow! He helps poor people here and doesn't let corporations shit on poor people at home! That sounds about as good as it gets for South America!"

Democrats with a sense of shame pretend that they don't like him because he hasn't done enough to help Venezula's poor. As if democrats have done anything marginally effective to help poor people since 1964.

*(And then you're not supposed to think too hard about how threatening Castro is.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:40 AM on February 26, 2006

Nice post, mm.
posted by Aknaton at 9:41 AM on February 26, 2006

I thought the left was against this sort of thing.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:45 AM on February 26, 2006

Personally, I think this is a retalliation for his threat to all-but ban United, American, and Delta from the country. (which, in turn, is due to the US's refusal to let Venezuela's airline fly into our country)

As far as facts surrounding Chavez... they're hard to come by. He has huge popular support, that is true. When he came to power, he led a sociallist pseduo-rebellion (that is, one performed legally within the democratic framework) against the entrenched plutoacracy. The usual populist promises of more food, money, health care, etc to the poor people. (who were 90% of the country)

And he delivered, which is a good thing. Except it pissed us off because as part of this, he nationalized the oil reserves and all but locked the US out of the country. We've helped in a couple coups against him, but they've failed. This pretty much cemented his hatred of the US government.

But in the last couple years, he may be getting a bit too drunk on power. There are increasing accusations of him gaming the polls, and he's starting to pass free speech restrictions which are borderline disturbing. Plus, his open admiration (bordering on a fanboy geekishness) towards Castro isn't a very good thing.

So I personally don't think he's crossed the line into being a full-on douche yet. But he's on that road. And rest assured, whenever he does anything for the American people, he's doing it to piss the US Administration off. (and potentially help lead us down the Dark Evil OMG PH34R! road of Socialism)
posted by InnocentBystander at 9:49 AM on February 26, 2006

"There are increasing accusations of him gaming the polls, and he's starting to pass free speech restrictions which are borderline disturbing."

So, how does this make him different from our President again?

Pot - Kettle - Black, indeed.
posted by black8 at 9:54 AM on February 26, 2006

Plus, his open admiration (bordering on a fanboy geekishness) towards Castro isn't a very good thing.

Why?
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:55 AM on February 26, 2006

3.2.3: Awesome, there's a citgo on my daily commute.
posted by substrate at 9:59 AM on February 26, 2006

Mayor Curley - I'm not nearly as anti-Castro as many Americans, but at the very least, one shouldn't look up to a leader who spends so much time throwing political opponents and journalists in jail. Personally, I think the only reason Castro is still IN power is thanks to our ludicrous embargo on the country. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to get away with such banana-republic tactics.

Black8 - Would it help clear things up if I mentioned that I think Bush *has* crossed the line into being a full-on douche?
posted by InnocentBystander at 9:59 AM on February 26, 2006

"There are increasing accusations of him gaming the polls, and he's starting to pass free speech restrictions which are borderline disturbing."

So, how does this make him different from our President again?

Exactly. Plus, Chavez has a very real and legitimate concern to address, which is that an opposition win will result in yet another Central American puppet government more than happy to whore its resources out to the U.S. to line the pockets of those in charge. If you think this is at all an exaggeration, have a look at Bitter Fruit, Jaguar Smile, or any of a number of other writings about how we've done it before.
I'm not saying that Chavez is perfect or even close to it, but he has delivered to his people what he reasonably could so far, and I do believe his path of idealism is genuine.

It kills me to hear all of the criticism mostly here in the U.S., including from supposed progressives and leftists, about how Chavez isn't delivering what every single thing he's promised. Expect from yourselves and your democracy half of what you expect from him, and perhaps then we'll get somewhere.

(It also bears mentioning that Chavez's program, while wonderful in theory, has not and cannot make up for more than a fraction of the need at least here in MA. It's been a mild winter, and there are still a lot of our poorer residents going cold this winter. )
posted by rollbiz at 10:15 AM on February 26, 2006

3.2.3 don't you think that's a little hasty? Hugo Chavez is a douchebag too, you know.

uh, no, i don't know that. i'm not at all down with the "chavez is a dictator" crap. i don't believe we're being hasty *enough* to counter the horseshit spread around by our corporate media about venezuala, one of the only truly independent nations in the world. it pisses me off greatly when some country elects a leader who actually does something for his country's less fortunate and the reaction of this country is to villify and try to topple him. not with my tax dollars you don't.

yeah, i heard, like, you know, chavez talks to the jackal by phone in his french prison cell. yeah, that's what i heard.
posted by 3.2.3 at 10:17 AM on February 26, 2006

"But in the last couple years, he may be getting a bit too drunk on power. There are increasing accusations of him gaming the polls, and he's starting to pass free speech restrictions which are borderline disturbing."


Well shit! Sounds like we've nothing to worry about! He's just emulating the American Way!
posted by stenseng at 10:19 AM on February 26, 2006

*blink* Ok, did I miss something? Has a rule been passed that says you can ONLY criticize Chavez OR Bush, but not both? Or neither?

Are you arguing that since he is a Bright Shining Light of Progresivism, we should look the other way if Chavez starts actively shutting down dissent, or begins locking up journalists like his hero does?

Or that since I live in a country with a leader who's a bigger douche than most, I therefore have no right at all to criticize anyone else?

Get a grip. I like what Chavez is doing. A lot of it. But that doesn't mean he could not EASILY turn into yet another tinpot dictator if he chooses. And it's people criticizing him NOW, rather than later, that will help keep that from happening.
posted by InnocentBystander at 10:26 AM on February 26, 2006

Uh. Right. Because if Hugo Chavez were going to decide to become a tinpot dictator, he'd base his actions on whether people on the internets approve.

Lets take up a poll!

Q: Should Hugo Chavez silence internal dissent? Check one:

YES

NO


Q: Should Hugo Chavez stop wearing solid colors, and maybe go with a nice slimming vertical print till he drops ten or so?

YES

NO

As long as he stops wearing so much red - he looks like a giant beaming horseradish!
posted by stenseng at 10:44 AM on February 26, 2006

amberglow - you're spot on.

If Citgo has to produce dox to support the heinous act of offering cheaper oil to those who are in need, ALL of Cheney's secret energy meeting information needs to be released at the same time. Want to guess who has more to lose in this scenario?

Chavez is less than a saint, but the fact remains that he has done more for the poor of Venezuela than any of the previous presidentes have done for a very long time. He has attacked the US commercial grip on certain aspects of Venezuelan society, and given the way the US is behaving in the global arena recently, he has every reason to be wary of the Bush administration and their involvement in the attempted coup/overthrow a few years ago. The Citgo oil discount is a very clever PR move for Venezuela, and given that the results of it will keep needy people warm this winter, I am personally offended that a single dime of taxpayer money should be spent on "investigating" the situation.
posted by dbiedny at 10:47 AM on February 26, 2006

Ok, whatever. I'm leaving this thread. He HAS passed laws outlawing most dissent of the government and while they haven't really been enforced much, they COULD be at any time. And now he's in all likelihood going to get his congress to change the Constitution to remove presidental term limits.

In ANY OTHER WORLD RULER, this behavior would be sending up warning bells so loud no one could miss them.

But no, because he opposes the US, and gives oil to poor people - a very noble thing, I conceed - he gets a free pass and no one is allowed to criticize him at all. Tra la la, tra la la, I can't hear you, la la.

Good bye.
posted by InnocentBystander at 10:56 AM on February 26, 2006

Mayor Curley, some reasons to not like Castro.

1

2

3

4

Of course, you can also find websites that offer only the merest facts of Cuba; websites that don't seem to paint anywhere near such a negative picture. You have to figure out for yourself that a country which has seen over a million people flee it's shores is probably not a great place. (There are an estimated 1.2 million Cuban-Americans, if only half of them are exiles than Cuba has seen the equivalent of one quarter of the population of its major city (Havana, 2.2 Mil) leave its country. This does not take into account the Cuban exiles in other countries.) You can also find websites designed to support Cuban tourism in which Cuba is presented as a paragon of equality and independence. It should be obvious that these websites are disingenuous at best.
posted by oddman at 11:00 AM on February 26, 2006

A principal of economics is that market stability is based on market forces, supply and demand. However, if a major player in a market decides to bias either supply or demand, this makes the entire market less stable.

That being said, what Citgo did was perhaps not as extreme as what the Hunt brothers did when they tried to corner the silver market, but it is equally deserving of investigation.

Yes, people did benefit from Citgo's actions, but it also had a destabilizing effect on US refineries, oil producers, and showed that a foreign government could modestly intervene in a US market to the tune of several billion dollars.

Citgo is not a publicly traded company. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Venezuelan oil company.

So, if any of you own stock, how would you like it if a foreign company messed with the market in which you had stock, perhaps costing you money?

Chavez did this far less out of the kindness of his heart, than with the hope of screwing America.
posted by kablam at 11:02 AM on February 26, 2006

I thought the left was against this sort of thing.

if there's a point in there, fuck if i can find it.

thanks for the warning about the .pdf, too.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:05 AM on February 26, 2006

MONEY money MoNeY $ Money MONEy DOLLARS DOLLA DOLLA BILLS YALL


posted by kablam at 11:02 AM PST on February 26 [!]
posted by stenseng at 11:13 AM on February 26, 2006

Is Chaves a Douchebag? What's one specific action that he's taken that makes him so?

For example:

George Bush is a douche bag for starting the Iraq War.

Tony Blair is a douche bag for trying to get rid of Double Jeopardy and Jury trials for "technical" criminal cases.

Ann Coulter is a douche bag for saying we should conquer the west bank and gaza and
Convert Palestinians to Christianity by force.

Scooter Libby is a douche bag for writing that book about bears raping young Japanese women.

You get the idea; these people have taken concrete action to do specific things which can be summed up in a single sentence. Every time someone brings up Chaves' douchebaggary, or wrongness they point to some long article on some website which may or may not be propaganda, and the last thing I want to do is spend time polluting my mind with what may or may not be propaganda.
posted by delmoi at 11:20 AM on February 26, 2006

So even though "InnocentBystander" has put his fingers in his ears and wants to hear no more about this Chavez beast, I have to wonder...

George Bush and his actions over the last 5 years, are they reason enough to "throw up warning bells"? In the US, there may not be laws on the books making dissent illegal (though these days, who knows?), but the way the society has been skewed to harrass anyone who questions the motives and actions of the Bush administration is sad. In today's US, life can indeed be difficult for anyone who wishes to question or disagree with the warmongering, nationalist rhetoric that passes for political discourse these days. Again, I'm never going to claim that Chavez is a saint, he's apparently speaking to Simon Bolivar in his dreams, but I'll tell you, that does not make me quite as uncomfortable as a president who thinks God is giving him the mandate to "free the world".

If we, as in the US, continue to screw with other countries and their politics, economies and peoples, we should expect nothing less than the same from other countries, especially those who can hurt us in some way. Every bully has to come to terms with the ramifications of their behavior. Payback is a bitch.
posted by dbiedny at 11:21 AM on February 26, 2006

Mayor Curley - I'm not nearly as anti-Castro as many Americans, but at the very least, one shouldn't look up to a leader who spends so much time throwing political opponents and journalists in jail. Personally, I think the only reason Castro is still IN power is thanks to our ludicrous embargo on the country. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to get away with such banana-republic tactics.

Why do you say that? There are lots of other countries in the world, none of which have similar embargos. The only thing our embargo does is limit the freedom of movement of innocent US Civilians.
posted by delmoi at 11:24 AM on February 26, 2006

So, if any of you own stock, how would you like it if a foreign company messed with the market in which you had stock, perhaps costing you money?

So what you're saying is, it's more important that rich people keep making money by investing in oil companies then it is for poor people to stay warm during the winter?
posted by delmoi at 11:31 AM on February 26, 2006

What's wrong with state-owned companies? I hear America is hiring an Emirate one for its ports. . . .
posted by bardic at 11:33 AM on February 26, 2006

"In the US, there may not be laws on the books making dissent illegal (though these days, who knows?), but the way the society has been skewed to harrass anyone who questions the motives and actions of the Bush administration is sad. In today's US, life can indeed be difficult for anyone who wishes to question or disagree with the warmongering, nationalist rhetoric that passes for political discourse these days."
posted by dbiedny at 2:21 PM EST on February 26 [!]

Such as the recent FBI investigation of Morrissey after he criticized Bush. Morrissey!, of all people.
posted by stavrogin at 11:33 AM on February 26, 2006

I'm procotting Citgo. Got a fill-up there just this morning, as a matter of fact.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:34 AM on February 26, 2006

if there's a point in there, fuck if i can find it.

Dumping.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:47 AM on February 26, 2006

So, if any of you own stock, how would you like it if a foreign company messed with the market in which you had stock, perhaps costing you money?

oh, i would say, let's invade them or support an armed coup.

what freaking tools. douchebags, indeed. let's not mess with oil markets. dick cheney might get upset. let's not cost exxon any business. they own it all and they aren't making enough money. they might fund a coup.

oooh, chavez *might* become a dictator without our consumerist internet diligence.

if what happened in venezuela had happened in the us, every last one of you apologists would still be under house arrest, if not permanently "missing."

you know, i think if i were in a country that went through two armed coups in four years headed by corporations and foreign governments, i'd want every one who had anything to do with it buried under the jail for the rest of their lives. yep. and fuck your calling it "dissent" or "free speech." especially if that country were helping millions of its own citizens get out of poverty. much less if i were that country's "dictator." i'm saying as people who voted in that country.

ok, did I miss something? has a rule been passed that says you can only call chavez a douchebag, less than a saint, or the bright shining light of progressivism but not all three or none of the above? do you make any sense at all?

but no, because he opposes the us attempts to take over his country, and gives oil to poor people - a very noble thing, i concede - he gets a vilified and investigated and no one is allowed to call bullshit at all. tra la la, tra la la, i can't hear you, la la.

don't let the door hit you on the way out.

and when it comes to cuba, dammitol, i only listen to americans who've been there. i do not listen to the miami children of water carriers for the chicago mob or boat people who dream of SUVs. there are too many people in cuba living the righteous life of promoting literacy and health care to shit on them any longer. i think they'd just like something to eat on occasion. cuba was a flipping cesspool of slavery before castro. and there are plenty of people who'd like to see it that way again. the same people who'd like to make one out of venezuela.

finally, i don't think providing a natural resource at nearer to the cost of extraction, rather than artificially commodifying its price to levels set by international cartels, TO POOR PEOPLE for pete's sake, is "dumping." if it is, let rep. barton tax the poor people's ill gotten gain. he's such an extraordinary servant of the people. maybe we should ban WIC as competing with Nabisco, or ban unemployment benefits as artificially inflating what would otherwise be a cheap labor pool. talk about chavez's motivations which you know nothing about all you want. the fact is, this little country the us kicks around is doing more for the poor people of the us than the people doing the kicking. that's bound to be pissing off the people doing the kicking, sure. to attribute that chavez is doing it to piss off the people doing the kicking is more than arrogant. it's toolish. kick the man for doing something right. go ahead. kick him. tool.
posted by 3.2.3 at 12:11 PM on February 26, 2006

Let's check our scorecard here. As self-appointed referee, I promise impartiality.
* Castro is possibly the least bad leader who never allowed elections Communism has ever had. But he's no democrat.
* Chavez has helped many poor Venezuelans, and is now helping poor Americans as well.
* Chavez first tried to take power in Venezuela by means of a coup, which somewhat dampens any high dudgeon the man may muster for coups aimed against him.
* Chavez is not a man widely known for his modesty.
* Chavez did stand for a referendum on his rule which he won in polls that were generally considered clean by independent observers, and he will stand for re-election this year, and is widely expected to win handily.
* Chavez has tinkered with his country's constitution to permit him to stay in office longer, and has recently suggested doing it again so that he can stay in office even longer than his revised constitution allows after his next term.
* South and Central America has a new crop of leftist leaders ready to challenge the Washington Consensus, yet who have not needed to resort to the tactics Chavez has used. It is unclear whether Venezuela represents a special case in this regard, or Chavez himself defines the exceptionalism.
* Chavez may have learned to work within a democratic system, but he remains a demagogue in spirit and practice. Like another leader in this hemisphere, he uses the pretext of external threats to justify extraordinary domestic policies.
* Chavez and Bush deserve each other. Is there a small room anywhere we could exile the both of them to?
posted by dhartung at 12:12 PM on February 26, 2006

Chavez has helped many poor Venezuelans, and is now helping poor Americans as well.

At the expense of poor Venezuelans, no?
posted by Kwantsar at 12:15 PM on February 26, 2006

Makes more sense than going to all the trouble of an attack on Venezualan oil production.

...which should be happening soon anyway in 5...4...3...
posted by Smedleyman at 1:28 PM on February 26, 2006

At the expense of poor Venezuelans, no?

No.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:02 PM on February 26, 2006

I came into this thread looking for some really solid information about Chavez and found nothing but annoying partisan sniping, then people denouncing the partisan sniping, then more partisan sniping. Can anyone link some good information about Chavez?
posted by cyphill at 2:21 PM on February 26, 2006

Cyphill, I tried to write just such an FPP last August, here. If not reliable, I hope it at least presents both sides' propaganda.
posted by jefgodesky at 2:36 PM on February 26, 2006

No.

Hmm, the prima facie case for my contention is obvious. Care to explain why it's wrong?
posted by Kwantsar at 2:43 PM on February 26, 2006

thanks Godesky, I will read and return!
posted by cyphill at 2:43 PM on February 26, 2006

Kwantsar, if i understand that situation correctly, Chavez is merely selling oil at less of a profit. Although the profit he is losing could be used to benefit the Venezuelans, he is not actually taking money from them per se. From what I've read so far (I have much more thanks to Godesky), this is just another step against the Washington Consensus.
posted by cyphill at 2:47 PM on February 26, 2006

Er, just to explain slightly better, Chavez is showing how a government run oil industry can supply more oil at a cheaper cost to the poor versus private industries.
posted by cyphill at 2:49 PM on February 26, 2006

Chavez is merely selling oil at less of a profit. Although the profit he is losing could be used to benefit the Venezuelans, he is not actually taking money from them per se.

In a world where opportunity costs exist, then, his off-price foreign sales certainly come at the expense of Venezuelans.
posted by Kwantsar at 2:52 PM on February 26, 2006

I fill up at Citgo anyway, because it's routinely ten cents cheaper than the Exxon, Mobil, and Shell stations near me (these three are at the same intersection, no less).

To me, Rep. Barton's investigation seems like a result of Congress accruing more and more power (actual and perceived) since the signing of the Constitution.
posted by Godbert at 2:58 PM on February 26, 2006

In a world where opportunity costs exist, then, his off-price foreign sales certainly come at the expense of Venezuelans.

I've always thought the idea of "opportunity cost" was kind of bogus, though. For example, if you watch Smartest Guys in the Room, you find out that Enron was all about the opportunity costs. The RIAA adds up their "losses" as if every download is a lost sale of a full-length CD. Both of these examples go awry when they begin invoking "opportunity cost," because the very idea of it is kind of bogus.
posted by jefgodesky at 3:09 PM on February 26, 2006

Kwantsar, try applying that argument to any charitable action performed by governments. The U.S. Government gives billions of dollars in aid a year. They could be using this money to help the homeless or curing aids or cancer. But they aren't. Does that mean they're donating the money at the expense of those citizens?

You're looking at a cost-benifit analysis, right? Well, why don't you try examining the benifits too?
posted by cyphill at 3:09 PM on February 26, 2006

I've always thought the idea of "opportunity cost" was kind of bogus, though.

It's a fundamental (and, AFAIK, uncontested) principle of economics.

cyphill-- When the 117th richest nation in the world ships underpriced petroleum to the fourth-richest nation in the world, "charity" is not the most descriptive term to come to mind.

The costs are $55 million, give or take, in foregone revenue to the Venezuelan populace. And what, exactly, are the benefits? A tinpot socialist gets to chuckle at the American leadership? A few lower-income Americans have more money to spend elsewhere?
posted by Kwantsar at 3:52 PM on February 26, 2006

US Senators asked Citgo to do this. It's bewildering that Congress is mad at them for it. From the Time article linked in the post:

When 13 U.S. Senators sent a letter to major U.S. oil companies last fall seeking heating fuel aid for lower-income residents in northern states, Citgo — a subsidiary of the state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) — was the only one to step forward.

posted by rajbot at 4:22 PM on February 26, 2006

delmoi pretty much owns this thread.
posted by wakko at 4:32 PM on February 26, 2006

When the 117th richest nation in the world ships underpriced petroleum to the fourth-richest nation in the world, "charity" is not the most descriptive term to come to mind.

at the risk of feeding this troll, one nation with much more balanced income distribution ships reasonably priced petroleum to the poorest of one of the most economically unbalanced nations, and yes, that is charity, if not good sense, mr. "obvious" spin.
posted by 3.2.3 at 4:59 PM on February 26, 2006

one nation with much more balanced income distribution ships reasonably priced petroleum to the poorest of one of the most economically unbalanced nations

You sure about that?

But, please, accuse me of trollery while you concurrently fail to support your assertions.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:15 PM on February 26, 2006

So, Kwantsar, when US Senators ask many oil companies to help with heating fuel for their low-income constituents, and Citgo says yes, then it's not charity? Would it have been charity if it were British-owned BP?
posted by krinklyfig at 5:23 PM on February 26, 2006

Well, krinklyfig, that's an interesting question. And I'm not sure that I know the answer. But here is a more apt analogy:

If a parent takes bread from the hands of his undernourished children, and gives it directly to the more-or-less adequately-nourished children down the street, is it charity?
posted by Kwantsar at 5:51 PM on February 26, 2006

The costs are $55 million, give or take, in foregone revenue to the Venezuelan populace. And what, exactly, are the benefits? A tinpot socialist gets to chuckle at the American leadership? A few lower-income Americans have more money to spend elsewhere?
posted by Kwantsar at 12:52 AM CET on February 27 [!]

You perfectly right, it's only $55 million that would benefit the Venezual population probably more then beneficiary americans, if they will be allowed to buy U.S. good with dollar or some other good with dollars.

I suppose that if Venezuelans will be harmed by that, then U.S. oil companies will absolutely have no problems reducing their revenue of that amount (notice I'm not mentioning giving that money, only reducing the revenue) because it's just $55 million, less then a dime in a year of big profits.

But

When 13 U.S. Senators sent a letter to major U.S. oil companies last fall seeking heating fuel aid for lower-income residents in northern states, Citgo — a subsidiary of the state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) — was the only one to step forward.

So let's see, a tinpot socialist responds to the populist demagogue call of 13 U.S. Senators, U.S. oil companies don't. I'm absolutely NOT suprised that big u.s. oil didn't respond, after all the Senators did they charade of asking and the blame rested on big oil, who already sinks in blame , but isn't elected so who fuck cares ?

Problem started when a tinpot socialist exposed that, offers oil to poor, outsmart U.S oil for a mere $55 million. Who's your daddy ?

When one has to choose between demagogues, one will probably choose the one that gives marginally more.
posted by elpapacito at 6:01 PM on February 26, 2006

it sure is a strange and confusing world these days.
posted by quonsar at 6:25 PM on February 26, 2006

Kwantsar writes "Well, krinklyfig, that's an interesting question. And I'm not sure that I know the answer. But here is a more apt analogy"

Well, the example I gave wasn't an analogy. It actually happened. It's what we're talking about.

I don't think it's too important to assign motives. If US-based oil companies had stepped up to the plate, they could call it charity, but it's more about PR. Many nations donated to Hurricaine Katrina relief efforts, and the US is "richer" than any of them are. Nobody's motives are pure as the driven snow.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:29 PM on February 26, 2006

The difference, as I'm sure you know, is that BP is owned by individuals, most of whom are wealthy, while CITGO is owned by the Venezuelan government, an organization whose constituents are mostly poor.

You needn't consider motives at all. When the US government gives free money to the shareholders of ADM, do you think that it's being charitable?
posted by Kwantsar at 6:59 PM on February 26, 2006

Pot - Kettle - Black

also see Gift - Horse - Mouth
posted by edverb at 8:14 PM on February 26, 2006

Is there a small room anywhere we could exile the both of them to?

dhartung, this (like the rest of your comment) is spot-on.
posted by donpedro at 8:29 PM on February 26, 2006

so just what is your objection, here, kwantsar?

i'm still not even sure what it is you're arguing. are you on the side of the poor venezuelans who miss out on $55 million worth of government spending?

is it that venezuela's motives are suspect for "dumping" the oil in what would otherwise be an unsullied U.S. oil market? or is it just that the left^(tm) should oppose what you call "dumping"?

i always thought that dumping was a way for one country to undercut another country's commodity by selling below cost until you drive the country out of the business (like the constant fight between the U.S. and Japan over steel markets that began in the late '70s).

are you really arguing that our market is in any way undercut by this subsidy in a year in which natural disaster leads to unprecedented windfall oil profits? are you really rushing in on the side of exxon and ilk, profiteers so unscrupulous as to be capable of deliberately capitalizing on the misery of the poor?

they're no different than the war profiteers like haliburton, who used to be hunted to extinction in this country. nowadays, they just install 'em as vice president.

so yeah, chavez is "dumping" to tweak bush and the U.S. oil oligarchs, helping out some poor people in the u.s. along the way. why are we supposed to oppose it?
posted by Hat Maui at 1:30 AM on February 27, 2006

Shorter kwantsar:

14 consecutive record breaking profit quarters by oil companies = wonderful
1 oil company having compassions for freezing poor people = terrible

Got it. Just good corporate fascist economics!

Good statements dhartung, except for this:
Like another leader in this hemisphere, he uses the pretext of external threats to justify extraordinary domestic policies.


In Chavez's case the external threat was real, the Bushies tried to depose Chavez with a coup, whereas the "WMD, etc." pretext for invading another country was a premeditated series of lies.

Shop at Citgo.
Boycott the Chinese communist state owned evil WalMart.
posted by nofundy at 6:57 AM on February 27, 2006

why are we supposed to oppose it?

You're not. Dumping is awesome for the consumer, and I could give two shits what Chavez does. However, it amuses me that the much of the left hates cheap energy (it increases our dependence on foreign oil!) and hates dumping (it keeps hardworking Americans out of a job!), but when their buddy Chavez is behind it, it's totally super.

And why everyone seems to be forgetting that the resources of the Venezuelan people ought to be spent for their benefit is beyond me.

Last, I really enjoy how so many in this thread intimate that the coup attempt was Bush's doing. All the administration did, as far as I can tell, is fail to stop it. I thought you guys were opposed to meddling in the affairs of other nations.

Or should we only do such meddling when it's against our interest?

PS-- the Exxon remark (in response to me), Hat Maui, is completely unfounded.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:12 AM on February 27, 2006

And someone better versed than I, with his take on the Administration's role in the coup.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:23 AM on February 27, 2006

However, it amuses me that the much of the left hates cheap energy (it increases our dependence on foreign oil!) and hates dumping (it keeps hardworking Americans out of a job!), but when their buddy Chavez is behind it, it's totally super.

It amazed me the left and the right completely agree on both the topics you say are leftist argument.

I haven't seen right closing the market to Chinese heavy dumping, nor stop Walmart dumping of markets.

I haven't seen the right fight the wild fluctuation of gas price at the consumer level..who fuck cares about market level ? It's an indicator the consumers don't care about, they care about pump price and it has mostly raised.

13 Senators write the Congress "reduce heathing oil price or the childrens will freeeze, so saving them for porn was useless ! " and the oil companies sensibly didn't answer (nothing to record) ..knowing NO answer was expected. Chavez stirs the waters , the impression right did something disappears and he obviously he is accused of dumping in retaliation.

Dumping ? Walmart has done more dumping then Chavez will ever be able to do , and I still have to see protectionist measure affecting Walmart.
posted by elpapacito at 10:02 AM on February 27, 2006

it amuses me that the much of the left hates cheap energy

but when their buddy Chavez is behind it, it's totally super

note to self: remember that maxim about wrestling with a pig.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:06 AM on February 27, 2006

The costs are $55 million, give or take, in foregone revenue to the Venezuelan populace. And what, exactly, are the benefits?

People in the country most likely to get aggressive towards Venezuela have to reexamine their assumptions about Chavez?

Look, I can appreciate the whole "but he could have taken that money and given it to the POORER people" argument, I really can. And I think it'd be plenty compelling if he weren't doing much for the poor of Venezuela, but it looks to me like the facts are that his social programs aimed at the poorest in his country are part of what has resulted in his current label as a "tin pot socialist." Not to mention that this argument is almost like if I decide to spot a friend who's struggling with rent for the month a few hundred, and someone says to me "Hey! Do you know how many nights that could have put a totally homeless guy up for? Or how many starving kids in Africa it could have fed? What a shameless use of your money!"

So it's not that there are poorer people he's not helping, really... what could it be? Well, there is this idea that the resources of a country should, by and large, be presided over as a stewardship that benefits the country itself. Local help first, right? I can buy that, but even when we're not doing borderline foolish things like expending trillions of dollars militarily reshaping a middle eastern country, we often seem to find it in our interest to send a few billion overseas while we've basically got a healthcare crisis and a good chunk of poverty here in the U.S, and sometimes see it as strategic.

In other words, Chavez didn't do anything that a first-rate first-world democracy wouldn't do, right?
posted by namespan at 11:08 AM on February 27, 2006

See, now I'm part of the left, and I didn't know I hated cheap energy! Thanks to kwantsar I know now what I'm supposed to believe!
posted by cyphill at 11:16 AM on February 27, 2006

And why everyone seems to be forgetting that the resources of the Venezuelan people ought to be spent for their benefit is beyond me.

That was the history of Venezuela from, let's be generous and call it "the end of World War II," up until Chavez took power. It is the continuing situation in the rest of Latin America.

To argue that Chavez is exploiting Venezuelans for the benefit of Americans is as mind-boggling to me as to argue that Martin Luther King wrote the Jim Crow laws. Whatever one might think of how he went about doing it (and there's a lot to question there--the ends do not justify the means), the primary hallmark of Chavez's reign has been the revolutionary idea (for the Third World) that a leader would actually put his own people's interests ahead of America's.
posted by jefgodesky at 11:33 AM on February 27, 2006

In other news: Army to Pay Halliburton Unit Most Costs Disputed by Audit
posted by homunculus at 12:50 PM on February 27, 2006

i think it's just beautiful and telling how a thread about an oil company spokesman sitting in the house of representatives fucking over requested donations of home heating oil for poor people has evolved into a discussion about whether hugo chavez is a complete douchebag or merely a demagogue. heck, i think it's just beautiful that anybody would come into a thread on metafilter about an oil company spokesman sitting in the house of representatives fucking over requested donations of home heating oil for poor people looking for links on the internet for information about whether hugo chavez is a complete douchebag or merely a demagogue. i think it's beautiful and telling how a thread about an oil company spokesman sitting in the house of representatives fucking over requested donations of home heating oil for poor people hinges on one word red-baiting to throw out straw men built of false dichotomies like "is it charity or is it dumping and which does the left prefer?" so we pay no attention to the representative from texas behins the curtain. somebody ought to be really proud of themselves.
posted by 3.2.3 at 1:33 PM on February 27, 2006

Kwantsar: Last, I really enjoy how so many in this thread intimate that the coup attempt was Bush's doing. All the administration did, as far as I can tell, is fail to stop it. I thought you guys were opposed to meddling in the affairs of other nations.

See... Here's where you're 100% wrong. The US government, led by Bush and the Republican Congress didn't simply fail to stop the coup. They actively funded the overthrow of a democratically elected leader.

We meddle with Venezuelan affairs on a daily basis. Dont pretend that we don't.
posted by toxic at 1:42 PM on February 27, 2006

[opportunity cost] is a fundamental (and, AFAIK, uncontested) principle of economics.

many are the fundamental principles of (post) modern economics that are contested. When compared to proper sciences, economics (especially as it is practiced in govt agencies) looks like a largely political game, rather than the pursuit of truth. While I can't speak to the illegitimacy of 'opportunity cost' directly, it seems another calculation only applied when politically expedient.

I would argue that there is no "right to profit," which undergirds many international legal claims to "lost profits" based on "opportunity cost" calculations. Labor economists should employ this tactic more often--I'm sure the numbers on health care costs are interesting.

cyphill-- When the 117th richest nation in the world ships underpriced petroleum to the fourth-richest nation in the world, "charity" is not the most descriptive term to come to mind.

you are correct. it's called a solidarity economy, and it's a strategy to build alliances against the Washington Consensus (AKA neoliberalism AKA MAI, GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, AFTA, FTAA, etc., the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, and the InterAmerican Development Bank, among others).

"charity" can maintain the power relations between the giver and the recipient, and as such is disengenuous giving, because it is giving only to placate people so they do not ask for what they need. This is the way International Aid and Loans currently work (at best); The G7 (and perhaps China, i don't know) gives X amount of dollars to country Z for project Y, not because it will do any good, although sometimes it does; but because it pleases the G7 and keeps foreign governments corrupt and weak, because they are listening more to G7 interests than those of their own people. Many times, the loans and aid money go to G7 companies, which defeats the purpose again.

Prominent establishment economists are in disagreement with this model; although they would not advocate a solidarity model of economics, there are elements of that kind of thinking in Jeffrey Sachs' the End of Poverty, his support for the Millenium Development Goals. In particular, the idea that debtor countries will define their own needs, as opposed to having them imposed by banks and foreign governments. My worry is that is process will not be decentralized and democratic enough, as Venezuela's Circles and the MST seem to be, and will just repeat other modernist development mishaps.

So, since US Senators asked for US oil companies to provide sliding-scale pricing for low-income US communities, Citgo, a US oil company, responded in solidarity, since their controlling interests have this philosophy. I hope this explains what that means. To disambiguate the two, you need to look at the longer-term economic and political context.

Furthermore, this is not "Dumping." Again, the similarity is that prices are lower, but it ends there.

An immediate example of dumping is the US sending cheap corn to Mexico via GATT and NAFTA, destroying millions of yeoman farmers, and threatening indigenous lifeways as well as the biodiversity of Zea mays itself. (But, securing the mexican corn market for Monsanto.)

Dumping would be if Citgo underpriced its oil in order to put ExxonMobil and the rest out of business, to destroy existing US refinery capacity, and USAmerican lifeways. I don't think I have to remind anyone that they are making record profits. And USAmericans are as well-fed as ever.

Since economics is an outgrowth of political science, it is often necessary to refer to the political context of an economic policy, despite what Milton Friedman says.
posted by eustatic at 1:42 PM on February 27, 2006