Heinz Calls on Venezuela to Give Back Seized Ketchup Plant



Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- H.J. Heinz Co., the world's largest ketchup maker, called on Venezuelan authorities to give back a plant seized yesterday by a state governor.

Heinz bought the ketchup plant in eastern Monagas state in 1996 and shut down operations for the last few years because of a dispute with local tomato suppliers, the company's Venezuelan unit, Alimentos Heinz, said in a statement. Pittsburg-based Heinz was trying to sell the plant when Monagas Governor Jose Briceno seized it, the company said.

``We're concerned at the actions of the authorities to seize the property,'' the company said. ``We hope this situation will be cleared up shortly and the property will be returned.''

President Hugo Chavez signed executive orders in January that established the legal framework for the government to seize private properties it considers unused, and to distribute them to poor farmers and workers.

Briceno seized the plant in order to reopen it, the government's Bolivarian News Agency said on its Web site. Briceno did not immediately return a message left at his office.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aW_DUNguG1FU&refer=news_index

I thought this was cute.

9/8/2005 12:02:33 AM

Oh man, if John Kerry was president this wouldn't have happened.

His wife would've been fucking pissed.

9/8/2005 12:06:05 AM

i had high hopes for chavez

but hes gonna fuck it all up now and get his ass invaded if he keeps pulling this chinese shit.

9/8/2005 12:18:09 AM

If I were in charge of Venezuela I would have done the same thing.

9/8/2005 1:16:15 AM

ha

WAIT, I THOUGHT SEIZING PROPERTY FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL NOW

9/8/2005 2:11:30 AM

Quote :

"The new revolutionary government adopted land reforms and confiscated all the private property owned by upper class Cubans and foreign companies. As a result, relations with the United States rapidly deteriorated"

9/8/2005 2:15:19 AM

He'll be seen as too Leftist and we know how America responds to communistic threats in its own backyard



That's right kids!
crippling economic sanctions and assasination!

9/8/2005 7:59:32 AM

NO

MOTHERFUCKER

I

WILL

NOT

SELL

YOU

MY

HOUSE

FOR

FAIR

MARKET

VALUE

SO

THAT

YOU

CAN

SELL

IT

TO

DEVELOPERS

9/8/2005 8:47:39 AM

If Venezuela wants to avoid sanctions, he should compensate foreign nationals whose property gets siezed. Hell, it would make sense just to compensate Americans, as we're the only ones whose government has had the balls to impose sanctions for fifty years.

9/8/2005 9:22:41 AM

WAIT, THERE IS A PLANT THAT GROWS KETCHUP?!?!??!? I'VE BEEN WASTING ALL THIS MONEY JUST FOR A FANCY BOTTLE WHEN I COULD BE GROWING IT IN MY BACKYARD.

9/8/2005 9:45:26 AM

not only will this piss off americans, if this turns into a policy, even if only against americans it will hurt FDI into the country... raising the risk for someone to invest may be an unintended consequence of his version of social justice....

9/8/2005 10:46:03 AM

Eminent domain laws anybody?

9/8/2005 11:10:03 AM

Quote :

"WAIT, I THOUGHT SEIZING PROPERTY FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL NOW"

9/8/2005 11:16:33 AM

Quote :

"If Venezuela wants to avoid sanctions, he should compensate foreign nationals whose property gets siezed."

i agree. but it should be left at that. we dont want to fuck up another country like we did nicaragua (but they were a mixed economy anyway, so it was even sillier to sanction them).

9/8/2005 11:34:19 AM

WAIT, I THOUGHT SEIZING PROPERTY FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE WAS CONSTITUTIONAL NOW

9/8/2005 11:46:02 AM

gg Chavez

I'd have done it too, it's my country, not Hienz Ketchup's. I'd tell them to go fuck themselves, just like castro did to the mafia.

9/8/2005 11:55:09 AM

Mmmmmmm....

Communist ketchup.....

9/8/2005 12:16:27 PM

That's what they get for oursourcing jobs....


THEY TOOOK RRRR JERRRRBS

9/8/2005 1:12:46 PM

DEY TUKK OR KECHUP

9/8/2005 1:35:26 PM

DUR DUR ERRRRR

9/8/2005 2:09:30 PM

Quote :

" if this turns into a policy"

it is a policy

in america

9/8/2005 2:10:45 PM

YOU CAN'T DIP FREEDOM FRIES IN KOMMIE KETCHUP!!!

9/8/2005 2:21:34 PM

KETCHUP IS RED.

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?

9/8/2005 2:33:36 PM

is eminent domain invoked on commercial property all that often? Even still, its to classify Chavez's actions as being exemplary of imminent domain, mainly because he's not really taking the factory for the purpose of using its land for a public project or to directly benefit the public; He's taking it because he wants to make money for the gov't doing the same exact thing that the current owners would do. Thus, he doesn't really need that factory if all he wants to do is create ketchup. He can just commission a Venezuelan gov't run ketchup factory and serve both "needs" without stepping on the property rights of Heinz.
I certainly hope no one here who isn't a radical leftist would advocate that the US gov't should take someone's business solely for the purpose of running and profiting from that business themselves. Whats that? This car factory is doing really well? OK, lets claim eminent domain and take it from Ford and make cars ourselves!
Of course, for those people out there who don't see a problem with the gov't controlling everything, then there is no reasoning with you on this topic.

BTW, its clear that Chavez also has no concern of any consequence for actual economics. If the local farmers don't want to sell their tomatos for 10cents a pound to Heinz, then they should go find someone who will buy them for 15cents a pound. Supply and demand, baby!*

* in general, you fucktards

9/9/2005 12:13:39 PM

I believe everyone else here was kidding...
You do realize that Venezuela is not going to provide "fair market compensation" for its siezures, where-as American Eminent Domain will.

9/9/2005 9:41:31 PM

^ yeah, suuuuuuuuuure it will. Seems to me that "fair market value" has gone out the window, especially in light of the recent SC decision. How do you judge fair market value when the property will be redeveloped to make someone else billions of dollars?

9/10/2005 1:05:59 AM

guys...they arent commies, yet

dont be a dumbass and jump the gun like reagan did w/ nicaragua.

9/10/2005 1:08:46 AM

^^^i don't think anything i've posted in here was said in jest



[Edited on September 10, 2005 at 1:46 AM. Reason : just cause i use caps don't mean i'm not serious]

9/10/2005 1:45:11 AM

^ alright, unlike in Venezuela, America's Eminent Domain will at least pay you a debateable fraction of the fair market price for your property.

Just ask Zimbaweans which they'd prefer.

9/10/2005 9:54:39 AM

oh, so taking away people's rights is ok as long as you give them some money

gg america

9/10/2005 1:40:41 PM

^ ivory tower idiology asside, yes. The principles of capitalism remain secure as long as you get compensated for the shit government destroys.

9/10/2005 2:20:08 PM

Quote :

"Even still, its to classify Chavez's actions as being exemplary of imminent domain, mainly because he's not really taking the factory for the purpose of using its land for a public project or to directly benefit the public; He's taking it because he wants to make money for the gov't doing the same exact thing that the current owners would do."

You didn't read the article.

Quote :

"Heinz bought the ketchup plant in eastern Monagas state in 1996 and shut down operations for the last few years because of a dispute with local tomato suppliers"

Quote :

"Briceno seized the plant in order to reopen it"

9/10/2005 2:46:26 PM

Quote :

"The principles of capitalism remain secure as long as you get compensated for the shit government destroys."

no, the principle of capitalism is Supply & Demand
if the gov't controls both of those, that is not capitalism, its facism with a showy finale

9/11/2005 12:29:45 AM

Quote :

"You didn't read the article."

oh yes I did. And the point still remains the same: chavez is trampling on property rights.

9/11/2005 12:47:58 AM

Quote :

"And the point still remains the same: chavez is trampling on property rights."

That's not the point you were trying to make

Quote :

"He's taking it because he wants to make money for the gov't doing the same exact thing that the current owners would do."

This statement is obviously false to anyone who read the article.

9/11/2005 1:01:59 AM

He was speculating about Chavez's motive for trampling on property rights.

9/11/2005 11:15:15 AM

It was more of an assumption, and a stupid one given the article clearly states that his motives were to open the factory back up to employ his citizens.

9/11/2005 11:37:46 AM

GIMME BACK MY SOCK YOU GOAT BASTARD!

9/11/2005 12:40:14 PM

Chavez didn't fucking seize the plant either. Jose Briceno did.

9/11/2005 1:47:22 PM

For whatever reason he wanted it open, assumption or speculation, it IS a violation of property rights. If Chavez (or the Governor) wants the factory open soo badly, he should pay for it.

9/11/2005 2:01:07 PM

Property rights are given by the state. This is not a violation of property rights.

9/11/2005 2:14:53 PM

Quote :

"For whatever reason he wanted it open, assumption or speculation, it IS a violation of property rights."

That's irrelvant to my arguement. My arguement involved this statement: "He's taking it because he wants to make money for the gov't doing the same exact thing that the current owners would do."

Which anyone who has read the article knows is wrong.

9/11/2005 2:38:21 PM

Quote :

" he should pay for it."

i'm sure he'd be willing to send them a check for like 40 pesos

9/11/2005 4:05:25 PM

He's the boss, he can write a check out to "Go" for the amount "$Fuck Yourself" and mail it to them.

9/11/2005 4:57:49 PM

Quote :

"Property rights are given by the state. This is not a violation of property rights."

That is one perspective, other people have a different perspective. "We hold these truths to be self evident..." etc etc.

In your perspective, do you follow it out to the logical conclusion, "Freedom of speech is a right given by the state. So is the right to life and limb. Executing the opposition is not a violation of either of these rights."

9/11/2005 10:20:29 PM

Quote :

"That is one perspective, other people have a different perspective."

No, it has nothing to do with perspective, you are using the wrong words. What you are describing is "human rights". "Property rights" are given by the state, thus why they vary from country to country, and even state to state.

9/11/2005 11:09:39 PM

I know, right. "human rights" are given by the state, ultimately. We must trust our respective governments with securing our rights.

Right to life? The death penalty. Right to speech? Campaign Finance Reform. Right to not be tortured? We'll just interrigate you for five hours and threaten to lock up those you care about. Right to property? Eminent Domain.

No two government enforce any of these rights the same way. All of our "rights" are violated at one point or another by our governments. So the fact that "rights to property" tend to be violated more than the others is not evidence that they are not rights.

Just because you have given a rank to the various rights does not mean some of them cease to be rights.

[Edited on September 12, 2005 at 12:18 AM. Reason : ...]

9/12/2005 12:17:01 AM

Quote :

"I know, right. "human rights" are given by the state, ultimately"

Nope, those are property laws, you've confused the two agian.

According to the constitution human rights are endowed on man by their creator. But other things say different things, I think most people have their own specific ideas of human rights, but most people in the world consider the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or some form of that to be human rights. You probably would like to put property in that list, but it's different for everyone.

And blah blah anarchist blah. I'm not trying to hear your anti government retoric, I was just trying to explain the difference between those two so you can stop confusing human rights with government granted property rights.

9/12/2005 12:30:42 AM

hahahaha yes, Heinz has international property rights. Any government anywhere in the world can do this at basically any time to any private entity. That is one of the assumed risks with foreign investment - the probability that the government will seize the facilities you paid for.

Heinz knew the risks associated with their plant being placed in fucking Venezuela. Please don't cry for them.

9/12/2005 1:11:26 AM

hahahaha yes, Heinz has an international right to life and limb. Any government anywhere in the world can execute or mame you at basically any time. This is one of the assumed risks of travelling overseas - the probability that the government will seize you, with due process of law of course, and punish you accordingly.

Some places cut off hands for theft, some places with execute you simply because you are the only suspect, evidence of guilt not needed.

US Constitution, 5th Amendment:

Quote :

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

The US Constitution seems to list property right next to life and liberty.

Just because you don't consider the right to property a human right does not mean that no one can without mixing up the language.

Look, in all honesty, no rights are sacrosanct. My point is that many people, including the American founders, considered the right to property a human right. Some idiots include the right to healthcare in their list of human rights, so we get to include the right to property in our list. As such, in my opinion, Venezuela is violating the people's human rights when it confiscates their property without compensation. This statement does not twist the language or use the wrong words.

9/12/2005 1:26:46 AM