Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (277751)	3/3/2006 3:25:12 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572508

Re: BTW do you, personally, agree with Berlusconi's views about America? Of course not --here's why: Message 21372621 Message 21383040 Message 20862189 Message 21375878

To: AK2004 who wrote (277751)	3/3/2006 4:09:05 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572508

Re: Italy and France are locked in a bitter dispute over Paris's decision to block a possible Italian takeover of a French energy company what happened to the EU? Somewhat the same thing that happened to you... clue: CNOOC Bid for Unocal No Threat to Energy Security by Jerry Taylor, Director, Natural Resources Studies, Cato Institute An $18.5 billion bid by a Chinese energy company to acquire the American gas and oil firm Unocal has sparked a strong but misguided reaction on Capitol Hill. On June 30, the House passed a resolution by 398 to 15 expressing national security concerns about the acquisition of Unocal by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), an energy company 70 percent of which is owned by the Communist government of China. On July 13, the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing that raised the decibel level several notches, with members especially vocal about the impact ofthe proposed deal on America’s “energy security.” But fears that such a transaction would harm national security by making the United States more dependent on foreign oil or that the proposed transaction threatens to somehow provide China with an “oil weapon” are ill-founded. In short: Energy independence provides no economic protectionagainst supply disruptions abroad and no guarantee that supplies will be secure in the future. America’s vulnerability to oil supply disruptions is primarily related to how much oil we consume, not where the oil we consume happens to originate. America need not worry about access to international oil supplies. Embargoes or supply diversions cannot keep oil out of U.S. ports, and there are plenty of sellers in world oil markets. Only a naval blockade could prevent America from buying all the oil it needs from international oil markets. Unocal’s reserves are not large enough to provide CNOOC with significant market power in the global oil economy. Because China is a net oil importer, it has every incentive to maximize production and none to curtail production.Accordingly, American and Chinese interests in the oil market coincide. freetrade.org Of course, you'll retort that for an Italian company to take over a French one is not the same as a Chinese company taking over a US one. Granted. But French misgivings about Italian capitalism are nonetheless justified because of Italy's openness to US money and control. For instance, just take Fiat: unlike the Brits who sold out their crown jewels Rolls Royce, Bentley, Jaguar, etc. to US and German automakers (VW and Ford Motor), the Italians would never give up their national champion Fiat to another European competitor, even though Fiat's car plants are virtually bankrupt... Instead, they managed to get General Motors involved --not as a potential "industrial acquirer" but as a mere financial prop.... news.bbc.co.uk Excerpt: Soured relationship The Fiat-GM alliance came about in 2000 as an alternative to selling Fiat outright. German-US car firm DaimlerChrysler had been willing to buy the firm, but Fiat patriarch Gianni Agnelli did not want to give up control. Instead, GM swapped a 6% stake in itself for 20% of Fiat - and gave Fiat a "put option" to sell GM the rest of the car maker between January 2004 and July 2009. But despite the alliance Fiat failed to put itself back on track, continuing to lose money and market share. As a result, the sell-off looked better and better for the Italians - and much worse for GM, which is struggling with its own loss-making European marques Opel and Saab. The relationship soured further after Fiat sold half its finance arm and recapitalised in 2003, halving GM's stake to 10%. ________________________________