Who's afraid of Kirchner's oil nationalization?

[marmar]

from the Asia Times:



Who's afraid of Kirchner's oil nationalization?
By Cyrus Bina


Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner at a press conference on April 16 announced the seizure of a 51% control in oil company YPF and reasserted Argentina's control over its oil deposits.

The key phrase in this spectacular act was "recovery of sovereignty and control". YPF was Argentina's longtime national oil company, whose assets, including oil deposits, were owned by the Argentinian public until 1993. In 1999, YPF was taken over by Repsol, Spain's once national oil company. The YPF oil reserves amounted to two-thirds of Repsol's ownership of oil reserves before re-nationalization.

On April 26, Argentina's Senate voted 63 to 3 confirming the takeover. The expropriation bill was taken up by the lower house of Argentina's Congress and passed by 207 to 32 on May 3. This bill is the latest in the carefully considered series of socioeconomic reversals against the 1990s' happy-go-lucky privatizations, known as neoliberalism, in Latin America and elsewhere in the world.

.....(snip).....

Argentina's economic default of the early 2000s was indeed a mixed blessing: it painfully revealed the tip of the neoliberal economic orthodoxy - long before the crisis of neoliberalism (and this malicious economic philosophy) tended to suffocate the world - and, at the same time, created wisdom for emerging from this mess by 2003 with the election of Nestor Kirchner. .................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NE08Dj05.html

[HereSince1628]

1. "period of transvestite politics" !?!

Oh my.

[marmar]

2. Yeah, I'm not quite sure what the writer is trying to say.....

..... in fact, I might take that graph out of the OP.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Interesting article; but ...

WTF is this:

The brunt of the Thatcherite period of transvestite politics and war, dubbed as the Iron Lady Era,

Does that term have a meaning other than what I know it to be ... especially when used in the same sentence as the mention of the decidedly "manish" (not my descriptor) Thatcher?

[marmar]

4. No clue. That's why I took it out of the OP.

[SoCalDem]

5. Perhaps an inartful way of saying that something is not what it pretends to be

Thatcher was more brutal (not "womanly&quot than most men. She had the appearance of a woman, but acted in a way that would be anything BUT "womanly". Did she do it to show she was as strong/stronger than any man who was there before her? or was she just a ferocious hawk, who happened to be a woman?

This is a common occurrence in right wing-land. Their method is to use visuals to make you think one thing, when the opposite is true.