Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

[admin]

ahh bullshit.

There are plenty of privatly traded copper companies and other mining companies to set compariable prices of an IPO for codelco, and chile get's plenty of revenue from the other miners in chile. BHP for instance almost produced as much as as codelco last year. hardly some mystery as to what it is worth.

[at46]

ahh bullshit.

There are plenty of privatly traded copper companies and other mining companies to set compariable prices of an IPO for codelco,

Hm, no, not at all. I mean BHP and Rio will be happy to take over Codelco, no doubt about that. And then what? Are they going to buy Chile free public education or upgraded medical system? Have they done that in any other country? https://www.thebalance.com/the-10-bigge ... 10-2340291

and chile get's plenty of revenue from the other miners in chile. BHP for instance almost produced as much as as codelco last year. hardly some mystery as to what it is worth.

I'd love to see the figures of the revenue Chile gets from the other copper miners in Chile. I'm just not going to hold by breath for the moment. 'Diversified' companies like BHP, Rio and the rest of them that
are operating around the world are set up that way in order to be able to manipulate their numbers and minimize payouts to any specific government.

[Julito]

Exactly, ala this.... scroll down a little, love the Cayman Islands weather report, nice touch.

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/

[Julito]

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/billion- ... a-and-png/

From the same web site, an example of how they do it.

[admin]

yea, well corporrations not paying taxes is a whole diffrent subject, and most of the world seems to have a problem with that.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04- ... y-no-taxes

[Julito]

True, but why IPO a state owned mining company for short term interests and then mere royalties when you can own the whole shooting match long term? The whole privatisation scam "leading to increased competition and lower prices" has long been proven to be complete bullshit. It´s only brought about price gouging for the benefit of shareholders, consumers, who're the majority, get screwed.

[Space Cat]

Considering all the TPP-11 pro-multinational agenda, I would very much prefer to keep some bargaining power in the hands of a relatively small non-aggressive state, despite it being not as efficient as some well-run private entity. (Also, too many big businesses here are run by slackers, thanks to the pituto-fueled oligopoly.)

Even dysfunctional governments still have some social obligations while corporations exist only to serve their shareholders by milking the population and lobbying more benefits for themselves. The less economical power states have, the bolder corporations get.

[at46]

Here's an interesting bit from a case study Chile's fiscal policy and mining revenue:

"Chile is the world’s leading producer of copper, accounting for 32 percent of world production (Figure 1) and 28 percent of world reserves."

"The main direct contributions of copper to Chile’s development have been as a source of foreign exchange from exports and as a source of government revenue. Its contribution to direct employment and even to GDP has been much more limited. (The copper mines created only 50,000 direct jobs. The contribution of copper to GDP averaged 6.2 percent over the 1980-2010 period. On the fiscal side, the contribution of Codelco since 1990 was equivalent to 13 percent of total tax revenues, exceeding 30 percent in some years. If taxation of large private mining is added, the contribution reached a record one-third of total tax revenue in 2006 and 2007, but was only 9.1 percent in 2014."

So this tells me foreign miners' fiscal contribution to Chile has been basically negligible (why am I not surprised?), even though, as admin pointed out, they extract almost as much copper as Codelco.

And I'm not even sure if their Codelco's total tax revenue computation includes the 10% of sales Codelco used to pay to carabineros, since it was a special arrangement under a special law. If it doesn't then foreign miners are screwing Chile even harder.

https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/ ... _PAGES.pdf

[admin]

that is 10% to the military, not the carabineros. even the military said they were fine with ending that law as long as they had sufficient budget runway to do long-term planning for projects. that one definitly needs to go.

actuelly i would be more inclined to see chile replace most of its defense spending on crusty old expensive technology with drone programs and a smaller manned disaster relief contingency.

pretty much nothing chile has right now would stand-up in a fight for more than a few days against any even moderatly modern military. so it is basically a waist of money. chile could field a lot of drones for the price of a couple old f-16s.

[admin]

well I think this call on latin american growth, out pacing asia might be right; but, for all the wrong reasons. In fact, the reasoning behind it makes me think the author is smoking something.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/ ... d27861a76d

what is interesting, this is another case of listing countries in latin america growth as evidence, and completely skipping chile (and peru, Panama, etc), while sighting Colombia's rather anemic growth last year as evidence for the thesis. Why would you not site two of the best performing economies in latin america, if you are trying to make a case for latin america overall?

Meanwhile the author went to great lengths to put lipstck on the that Argentinan pig next door. Good thing pork bellies prices are up, because pork is all that will be driving the Argentina economy for the next several years. hell, they even mentioned Venezuela as a regional growth factor; but not chile? Not Peru?

[admin]

so it looks like this article is calling for an average growth of chile of 3.2%, 3 to 4% mostly, for the next decade.

https://www.df.cl/noticias/economia-y-p ... 53330.html

[at46]

well I think this call on latin american growth, out pacing asia might be right; but, for all the wrong reasons. In fact, the reasoning behind it makes me think the author is smoking something.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/ ... d27861a76d

Given the amount of space the article gives to Argentina, it's not about Latin American economic prospects at all, but about trying to help Macri's re-election. When was the last time the Forbes published something remotely interesting anyway?