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: Elroy who wrote (286805)	5/5/2006 8:28:53 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586035

No. I don't believe that the government should own the natural resources of a country. Instead, I think the people should own it. Just as in the US, people form companies and purchase or lease land, then drill on it for oil. If they strike oil, then it is theirs to sell. If the people of a country needs to partner with a foreign company to use that foreign company's technology to pull the oil out of the ground, then that is what we call a business contract. Contracts are enforceable by international law. If contracts are broken, then there should be international consequences. The first are the obvious ones, such as foreign companies will most undoubtably refuse to do business with a government that is unstable and likely to steal their profits. The second should be WTO consequences. If the nationalizing country is not part of the WTO, then that should go down as a black mark that would have to be rectified prior to them every entering it. Furthermore, a company whose assets were seized unlawfully, should be able to sue the country and the judgement should be paid out of that country's assets held in foreign banks, which would be seized as part of sanctions imposed for unlawful activity.