Angola’s oil earnings were controlled not by the Treasury and the central bank, as
required by law, but by Sonangol and the president’s office. Much of the money was deposited
in secret offshore bank accounts. [...]
on July 15, 2000, the US firm
Marathon Oil paid US$13.7 million into a Sonangol account in Jersey. This was one third of a
signature bonus Marathon had agreed to pay for the rights to an offshore oil tract. Over the next
few months, reportedly, large sums were shifted out of that account to, among others, a former
cabinet minister’s company and President Dos Santos’s charitable foundation.
Angola received large sums from the oil companies in the form of so-called “signature
bonuses,” which are cash paid upfront upon signing a contract.
[...]
In seeking the best price for an oil block, the government has two instruments, the
signature bonus and the royalty rate. To get the full force of bidding competition among the oil
companies, the government must set the right mix of upfront and ongoing payments. According
to the theory of auctions, royalties make the bidding more competitive, and the total price higher,
by evening out differences in the bidders’ perceptions of the likely value of the tract, so generally
the government should put much of the weight on royalties and less on the signature bonus.
[...]
However, the signature bonus is received immediately, whereas the royalties arrive years later.
If the government, anticipating being ousted, has a short time horizon, it wants the cash right
away, so it might negotiate a higher signature bonus and a lower royalty rate than would yield
the maximum total revenue. High signature bonuses and low royalty rates thus work to the
benefit of the government but to the cost of the nation as a whole.
[...]
The second problem with signature bonuses, apart from their size, is where they go.
According to the IMF, the bonus payments were rarely listed in Angola’s fiscal accounts, and
when they were listed they were understated. For example, the oil companies told the IMF that,
following a September 2001 auction for a deep-water block, they paid about US$400 million.
The government told the IMF it received US$285 million. From this single auction, more than
US$100 million was left unaccounted for.
[...]
Angola’s oil earnings were controlled not by the Treasury and the central bank, as
required by law, but by Sonangol and the president’s office. Much of the money was deposited
in secret offshore bank accounts.
[...]
Angola’s oil earnings were controlled not by the Treasury and the central bank, as
required by law, but by Sonangol and the president’s office. Much of the money was deposited
in secret offshore bank accounts.
So Angola was getting paid upfront, with signature bonuses instead of royalties, but these "signature bonuses" weren't being paid into the treasury but were vanishing into the pockets of the members of the government.
And you think the oil companies had no idea what was going on? That they had no interest in things being arranged like that?
I don't think $1T in minerals is enough to justify an invasion and war alone, especially one that cost a significant fraction of that value, particularly if you look at the true cost of the conflict.
Don't forget that the "true cost" of the conflict won't be paid by the people who make money out of any mineral extraction. In fact the people who make money out of the mineral extraction are often the same people who you pay the "true cost" to.
Of course The Soviet Union collapsed, and we like to think that was because it was undemocratic, although to me it seems that it was more due to a lot of bad policy decisions in the social, economic and authority sectors that caused it to collapse.
The whole point of democracy is to try and avoid (not allways successfuly) "bad policy decisions in the social, economic and authority sectors".
More or less any kind of government would work with perfect people running it. Democracy is supposed to work even when run by crooks and fools. Which is good, because that's all we've got.
Finally, if you want to look at West Africa, why not look at Ghana - the first West African country to gain independence, a country with political and social stability, and a country with a long history of mining
Ah yes, the first African country to gain independance, in 1957. Now a haven of peace. Pity about the repeated military coups between 1966 and 1993. Arguably only a democracy since 2000.
We have friends in Paris, and we have seen with our own eyes the difference high energy prices make. Most of the apartments in Paris have a mechanism to automatically turn off lights in the hallways between apartments.
That is the result of high energy prices in the 70's-80's. After the various "oil shocks" France built a shitload of nukes and electrictity prices are now "the lowest in the world"(TM).(*)
But once you've got into the habit of saving money why are you going to start wasting it again.
((*) Yes, I know this is a lie, but French electricty prices are not higher than US ones).
Cap and Trade was designed by political hacks who wanted to use Global warming to resolve the issue of the third world debt incurred with the oil crisis in the 1970's (which was a major issue in the 80's and 90's until Kyoto came about with the cap and trade system).
No, cap and trade was proposed at Kyoto because it was the only way to get the US to sign up to the deal. Didn't work in the end, but that was the plan.
Apart from the ideological "markets are good" reasons for cap and trade the other advantage was that it could be shown to have worked in reducing the acid rain problem.
But as many people point out even the sainted Ronnie wouldn't be accepted by the TeaBaggers these days.
During the Reagan years, federal employment grew by more than 60,000 (in contrast, government payrolls shrunk by 373,000 during Bill Clinton's presidency). The gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent nearly tripled. The national debt soared from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the U.S. transformed from the world's largest international creditor to its largest debtor. After 1981, Reagan raised taxes nearly every year: 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986. The 1983 payroll tax hike even helped fund Medicare and Social Security—or, in terms today's Tea Partiers might recognize, "government-run health care" and "socialism."
I do not mean this to offend, or taint your argument, or as a direct attack on your character: but that is precisely what Karl Marx argues in the Communist Manifesto
Slashdot Mirror
This is a lie.
If you claim it is not a lie please identify the "serious scientific article" that was prevented from being published.
So you are claiming that god didn't know the shrimp was there?
Brilliant.
And you whine about "politcal correctness" as well.
Moron.
But what about gay people who do register internet domains?
Or to be less flippant - where do you get the wierd idea that gay people can't have children?
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
I have to wonder what percentage of your cell phone bill goes to pay the cost of stupid litigation like this...
Uh, none of it?
My cell phone bill goes to my network provider, not handset manufacturers.
Well, there's your problem, right there.
Should have got yourself an n900.
So Angola was getting paid upfront, with signature bonuses instead of royalties, but these "signature bonuses" weren't being paid into the treasury but were vanishing into the pockets of the members of the government.
And you think the oil companies had no idea what was going on? That they had no interest in things being arranged like that?
http://www.google.fr/search?&q=bp+bribes+royalties
3rd result: http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20814/Corruption_transparency_Angola1_No36.pdf
Start reading on page 7
That is not a typo.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_2.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+bribes
http://www.google.com/search?q=total+bribes
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22rio+tinto%22+bribes
Don't forget that the "true cost" of the conflict won't be paid by the people who make money out of any mineral extraction. In fact the people who make money out of the mineral extraction are often the same people who you pay the "true cost" to.
The whole point of democracy is to try and avoid (not allways successfuly) "bad policy decisions in the social, economic and authority sectors".
More or less any kind of government would work with perfect people running it. Democracy is supposed to work even when run by crooks and fools. Which is good, because that's all we've got.
Bullshit. The first thing resource extraction companies spend money on is bribes to government officials to get their royalty payments reduced.
Ah yes, the first African country to gain independance, in 1957. Now a haven of peace. Pity about the repeated military coups between 1966 and 1993. Arguably only a democracy since 2000.
These guys make some good female-female gender changers. Pretty reliable in my experience.
BP (not British Petroleum, BP is the result of a merger between British Petroleum and Amoco) is 39% American owned (40% British).
BP employs 29,000 people in the states and about 10,000 in the UK.
Who pays the payback?
Uh, "recent chrome builds" are not firefox. Learn to read before replying to someone.
No, go with burning pixie farts - it smells better.
That is the result of high energy prices in the 70's-80's. After the various "oil shocks" France built a shitload of nukes and electrictity prices are now "the lowest in the world"(TM).(*)
But once you've got into the habit of saving money why are you going to start wasting it again.
((*) Yes, I know this is a lie, but French electricty prices are not higher than US ones).
No, cap and trade was proposed at Kyoto because it was the only way to get the US to sign up to the deal. Didn't work in the end, but that was the plan.
Apart from the ideological "markets are good" reasons for cap and trade the other advantage was that it could be shown to have worked in reducing the acid rain problem.
Water, an insanely polarised molecule, known as the universal solvent, is nowhere near chemicaly inert.
You want "inert" chemical compounds try for example N2.
I do not mean this to offend, or taint your argument, or as a direct attack on your character: but that is precisely what Karl Marx argues in the Communist Manifesto
And?