Spanish socialists get $500 million cash infusion from American capitalist system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Loki, I must say I am rather surprised by you. You want governments, especially Spain, to put in austerity measures, but at the same time want them to pay millions and millions for someone bringing up their property without them asking for it in the first place. And if they won't pay, you want them to just give it up. And I also thought you liked property rights, e.g. that you can do with your property as you please, including ignoring it if you want. Or does that only apply when it's in American companies' favour?

---

I know you think you have a strong argument here, but you really don't. They weren't looking for it, and they didn't know where it was until Odyssey found it. Odyssey didn't know what they found until they brought up the artifacts and had them examined by experts. I also haven't heard Spain moving to drop it all back in the ocean, so they clearly didn't actually want it where it was. Further, it is only by legal technicality that it isn't undisputably Odyssey's. Every place has laws and rules about abandoned property, and this was certainly abandoned. It wasn't in an area of Spain's control, it was in an unknown location, and Spain had made no effort to retrieve it, and I think 200 years is well past what one would consider a reasonable time period for action on their part.

I don't actually begrudge Spain laying claim on the thing, they have the right due to the specifics of the find, but they really didn't need to be such dicks about it. And after such a windfall, they can afford to kick back 10% to the people who got them the windfall, and while not the haul they were expecting, it would have been more than fair compensation for their troubles.

Please don't try to frame this thing as a battle against the evil corporate oppressors. It's beneath you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And next time, the ship stays under water, the "national treasure" stays in the ship, and no one benefits. But at least an archaic piece of customary law will be well-applied!

---

How relevant are things that don't happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

I know you think you have a strong argument here, but you really don't. They weren't looking for it, and they didn't know where it was until Odyssey found it. Odyssey didn't know what they found until they brought up the artifacts and had them examined by experts. I also haven't heard Spain moving to drop it all back in the ocean, so they clearly didn't actually want it where it was. Further, it is only by legal technicality that it isn't undisputably Odyssey's. Every place has laws and rules about abandoned property, and this was certainly abandoned. It wasn't in an area of Spain's control, it was in an unknown location, and Spain had made no effort to retrieve it, and I think 200 years is well past what one would consider a reasonable time period for action on their part.

I don't actually begrudge Spain laying claim on the thing, they have the right due to the specifics of the find, but they really didn't need to be such dicks about it. And after such a windfall, they can afford to kick back 10% to the people who got them the windfall, and while not the haul they were expecting, it would have been more than fair compensation for their troubles.

Please don't try to frame this thing as a battle against the evil corporate oppressors. It's beneath you.

---

As I have posted before, it would be nice if they covered the expenses or pay a finder's fee, or whatever. I'm just surprised by Loki here. IIRC he is also quite strongly against squatting, which is basically making use of housing that is not used, nor has plans to be used (in the Dutch case, anyway). IIRC he said that even if it wasn't used, or planned to be used, you were not allowed to use it yourself because it's someone else's property and it's theirs to neglect it, if they want. And also he is suddenly complaining about morality of using laws to get what you want as cheaply as possible (or free, in this case), while I don't exactly recall him complaining about banks/corporations/whatever using legal loopholes to make money from other people.

Furthermore, everybody claims that Odyssey did not know what they were bringing up, but as I've said before you've only got their word for that (and they sure as hell have an interest there), and were not diving where they said they were diving before, and tried obscuring it, so they are not exactly saints either (nor should you expect them to, they're not working for the public interest but for their own profit, which is their right). So as I've posted before here, I do think Spain is acting like a dick, but they both are. Oh, and the dumping back is a stupid argument too, obviously they are happy it's out of the ocean even if they did not make plans to get it out before. They might have done it themselves in a few years, who knows? I mean, they probably would not have, but to expect them to throw it back is silly at best.

Leaving your silver hoard far under the sea is a seriously cheap way of keeping it. A lot more cost effective than having to store it in a secured facility on land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

As I have posted before, it would be nice if they covered the expenses or pay a finder's fee, or whatever. I'm just surprised by Loki here. IIRC he is also quite strongly against squatting, which is basically making use of housing that is not used, nor has plans to be used (in the Dutch case, anyway). IIRC he said that even if it wasn't used, or planned to be used, you were not allowed to use it yourself because it's someone else's property and it's theirs to neglect it, if they want. And also he is suddenly complaining about morality of using laws to get what you want as cheaply as possible (or free, in this case), while I don't exactly recall him complaining about banks/corporations/whatever using legal loopholes to make money from other people.

---

I'll let Loki do the heavy lifting of defending himself, but the parallels with squatting aren't very strong.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, everybody claims that Odyssey did not know what they were bringing up, but as I've said before you've only got their word for that (and they sure as hell have an interest there),

---

Yes, but I have no evidence supporting calling them liars, don't think it's fair to assume off the bat any wrongdoing, and it's not as if they would have been able to hide it for long. It also makes sense that it'd be an unidentifiable wreck - 200 years on the ocean floor can't be kind to a wooden ship, and it makes sense that it'd only be identifiable by the more durable artifacts onboard.

Quote:

---

and tried obscuring it,

---

The security reasons for this are obvious, so it's a rational measure to take. There were also supposed to be legal reasons which I don't really get, but from my experience with lawyers I've come to accept that their art is akin to mysticism, and it's better to just follow along with whatever they ask you to do in service to their arcane rituals.

Quote:

---

Oh, and the dumping back is a stupid argument too, obviously they are happy it's out of the ocean even if they did not make plans to get it out before. They might have done it themselves in a few years, who knows? I mean, they probably would not have, but to expect them to throw it back is silly at best.

---

Which was my point. They clearly didn't want it left where it was. This has no bearing on the case itself, I just wanted to put to rest the idea that they wanted it where it was.

Not in response to anything in your post really: this case as executed isn't really about property rights at all - if it were only about that, Odyssey would have won it - it's about sovereignty rights. Which is how Spain got the win.

Sovereignty = is ownership.

The US government claims sovereignty over the land on which I live. I am the owner of that land, not the US government.

While sovereignty can equal ownership in practical effect, such as this Odyssey case, they are not the same thing. Here, Spain leveraged their sovereignty to get ownership.

Honestly arguments like they did not care about it for years are worthless, so what its theirs. The right thing to do would have been to contact the Spanish government and obtain a contract that would compensate them for the retrieval as was mentioned several times. I do not see how Spanish government is under any moral obligation to compensate them the costs now after having had to fight a legal battle to reclaim what turned out to be theirs by law.

Quote:

---

Which was my point. They clearly didn't want it left where it was. This has no bearing on the case itself, I just wanted to put to rest the idea that they wanted it where it was

---

Wanting it to be at the bottom of the ocean and being content to leave it their are different things. They were content to leave it at the bottom of the ocean perhaps eventually paying a Spanish company to bring it up. But once someone took the initiative to bring it up the were also content to keep it, although they probably were not too happy at having to fight a court battle to recover the treasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And next time, the ship stays under water, the "national treasure" stays in the ship, and no one benefits. But at least an archaic piece of customary law will be well-applied!

---

No, the next time someone comes across a Spanish wreck, or maybe even any wreck that could be Spanish, they plunder it in secret and that's that. 17 tons of gold and silver isn't going to just stay on the ocean floor on account of this decision, it just won't be reported either, and any historical or archeological value is going be destroyed in the effort to keep the haul that's been found.

Go government!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

And I also thought you liked property rights, e.g. that you can do with your property as you please, including ignoring it if you want. Or does that only apply when it's in American companies' favour?

---

So, I can choose to drop my property, like a crate containing a bunch of gold bars, in the middle of a "public" area, and expect to be able to reclaim it 200 years later? Please. Pretty sure I dropped a few bucks in coins on the sidewalk the other day too... clearly I should go to the police/courts and try to sue whoever picked them up to get "my property" back? :bored:

I'm honestly having a lot of trouble trying to figure out why you think these statements you're making are at all analogous or contain anything resembling a worthwhile argument. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asmodian

The right thing to do would have been to contact the Spanish government and obtain a contract that would compensate them for the retrieval as was mentioned several times.

---

And you can say it several more times if you'd like, but it still won't change anything or make anyone forget that you're ignoring the relevant issues at bar and essentially demanding clairvoyance from others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

No, the next time someone comes across a Spanish wreck, or maybe even any wreck that could be Spanish, they plunder it in secret and that's that. 17 tons of gold and silver isn't going to just stay on the ocean floor on account of this decision, it just won't be reported either, and any historical or archeological value is going be destroyed in the effort to keep the haul that's been found.

Go government!

---

You could already argue that's the existing situation. Given that already if they find something at the bottom of the sea-floor and already have to give a large portion (often a majority) to the government it legally belongs to, why don't they already not report it and just steal it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You could already argue that's the existing situation. Given that already if they find something at the bottom of the sea-floor and already have to give a large portion (often a majority) to the government it legally belongs to, why don't they already not report it and just steal it?

---

There is a good bit of long term profit in traveling exhibits. Odyssey already does this.

Quote:

---

No, the next time someone comes across a Spanish wreck, or maybe even any wreck that could be Spanish, they plunder it in secret and that's that. 17 tons of gold and silver isn't going to just stay on the ocean floor on account of this decision, it just won't be reported either, and any historical or archeological value is going be destroyed in the effort to keep the haul that's been found.

---

Someone obviously has no clue as to difficult it would be to then get it in to the banking system as well as the fact you essential become a criminal with a jail sentence hanging over you if caught likelihood of which is high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

The US government claims sovereignty over the land on which I live. I am the owner of that land, not the US government.

While sovereignty can equal ownership in practical effect, such as this Odyssey case, they are not the same thing. Here, Spain leveraged their sovereignty to get ownership.

---

Sorry, but the sovereign is not the government. The sovereign is the nation. On that level your ownership means nothing; your ownership starts on the lower level where the law works. The level where 'we the people' say : these are the rights of each citizen. At least, that is the way it works in a country based on democratic principles.

The difference is that the state has to respect your rights as an owner. The nation can say on a whim 'you are not the owner and as a matter of fact you were never the owner and don't think you can turn to the courts because there are no courts I recognize'. Most nations choose a more organised approach to things, but that's because they choose the organised way, not because they have to.

That is completely backwards and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You could already argue that's the existing situation. Given that already if they find something at the bottom of the sea-floor and already have to give a large portion (often a majority) to the government it legally belongs to, why don't they already not report it and just steal it?

---

Well you're wrong. It generally makes more sense to take the guaranteed 40-80% of the haul you can negotiate with the government than take it all and have the possibility of it all being taken away from you at some point and being sent to jail for just grabbing it.

Personally, I'd just grab it and run either way, but I'm not a corporation, and am also unusual in that I don't give a fuck if I die in a firefight with the authorities. Most people have this fear of death/incarceration thing that informs their decision-making processes. And that in mind, the rational decision is usually to compromise a little and still walk away millions of dollars richer, instead of risking your life to walk away with 2 or 3 times more. And I know you're not the type who'd risk losing everything and going to jail when you can do it above board and take home 12 million instead of sneaking off with 20, so that's kind of an ill-thought out or disingenuous argument you got there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asmodian

Someone obviously has no clue as to difficult it would be to then get it in to the banking system as well as the fact you essential become a criminal with a jail sentence hanging over you if caught likelihood of which is high.

---

Actually, shows what the hell you know given the status of antiquities as a a staple of the money-laundering trade, and the virtual impossibility of sourcing and tracking fungible commodities. 17 tons of newly smelted gold and silver is still worth a fortune, and good luck proving it came from a shipwreck I plundered. And that's actually the way it's done when people "illegally" plunder treasure ships. They melt [the vast majority] of the coins into bullion and laugh all the way to the bank or the floor safe or vault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Well you're wrong. It generally makes more sense to take the guaranteed 40-80% of the haul you can negotiate with the government than take it all and have the possibility of it all being taken away from you at some point and being sent to jail for just grabbing it.

Personally, I'd just grab it and run either way, but I'm not a corporation, and am also unusual in that I don't give a fuck if I die in a firefight with the authorities. Most people have this fear of death/incarceration thing that informs their decision-making processes. And that in mind, the rational decision is usually to compromise a little and still walk away millions of dollars richer, instead of risking your life to walk away with 2 or 3 times more. And I know you're not the type who'd risk losing everything and going to jail when you can do it above board and take home 12 million instead of sneaking off with 20, so that's kind of an ill-thought out or disingenuous argument you got there.

---

Having conceded the fact that there is an incentive to act legally for them, if not brave and macho you, what is that incentive worth?

Make a deal: Get upto 80% of the value of the haul, all done legally, free publicity from the news (always puff pieces about these finds, good news stories), can further cash in by selling your story, providing exhibitions etc
Just steal it: Get 100% of the haul however: risk of incarceration or being viewed as pirates etc, no dealing with criminal gangs, risk of getting caught, costs of smelting etc, devalued via having to deal with the black market, news stories would not be positive etc, etc

Quote:

---

Actually, shows what the hell you know given the status of antiquities as a a staple of the money-laundering trade, and the virtual impossibility of sourcing and tracking fungible commodities. 17 tons of newly smelted gold and silver is still worth a fortune, and good luck proving it came from a shipwreck I plundered. And that's actually the way it's done when people "illegally" plunder treasure ships. They melt [the vast majority] of the coins into bullion and laugh all the way to the bank or the floor safe or vault.

---

Well since I actually work in anti money laundering division of bank I actually have to know about it rather then just make idiotic statements that completely miss the point. Yes the 17 tons of gold are worth a fortune however how would you sell it, institutions that would buy such quantities of gold would have to do due diligence meaning the burden of proof would actually be on you to explain and, when we are dealing with amounts of 500 billion, prove how you came by that gold and where the eventual money you used to purchase it came from. You can possibly do all that and certain banks will even assist you it will cost you thou something like 20%. Also you smelted ancient coinage, that probably had value reduction in your find. Finally I am betting that an operation like this involves quite a few people not all of whom walk away with a % of the find, so you would be involving large number of people in a criminal activity anyone of whom can denounce you so you have to pay them more or I guess eliminate them? If you pay them there is a risk that they will raise suspicion when depositing funds and some bank will report them which will start the chain of investigation. So in the end you will end up paying at least 40% of the find just to legalize to an extent and in the process become a career criminal, its not impossible and may be even worth it but I don't think its such a hot alternative when you could essentially do the same thing legally.

double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asmodian

Well since I actually work in anti money laundering division of bank

---

Which bank? I may be interested in opening up an account or 17. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That is completely backwards and wrong.

---

I take that as a compliment, coming from you.

Asmodian: right, right, all valid points.

Still though, it's better than 0, though I suppose that if they are caught the company will go bankrupt from having to pay Spain for the melted gold and such... possibly.

Odyssey isn't expected to survive losing this anyway...

Spanish socialism driving American companies out of business... go government!

It's got nothing to do with socialism. It's lawyers pure and simple. Should fit well in with American legal system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

It's got nothing to do with socialism. It's lawyers pure and simple. Should fit well in with American legal system.

---

It's the irony of the idea that a government which tends to discourage things like what this company did actually taking the fruits of their labor... of course both Cain and I exaggerate that the Spanish government is socialist, but it's the irony of the above that we are trying to point out...

Oh no, the Spanish government IS socialist. Much of the time anyway, I don't follow their politics. Just THIS isn't.

Agreed, this has nothing to do with socialism/capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

Agreed, this has nothing to do with socialism/capitalism.

---

I think that every single Spaniard would be surprised to hear their government described as socialist. The Partido Popular is a party significantly right of center.

Hazir, the whole continent is socialist for them. Including the far right, which are just racist socialists.

The far right are racist socialists. They're far more socialist than the centre right. Do you dispute that?

Depends on the party. But as I see you really believe the right on the continent are just different shades of socialists.

I do not think the centre right are socialists. I do think the far right are.

However I think all French governments are shades of socialists.

In general, or as in the BNP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

In general, or as in the BNP?

---

Definitely the BNP are. In general too from what I've seen. Economically Le Pen would definitely have been to the left of Thatcher for example.

There may be some far right parties which are racist capitalist parties - but I'm not aware of any. Are you?

Currently, I'm not aware of any except the Tea Party. I was mostly thinking historically, given my fetishes, that the Nazis weren't really a radical left movement. But some of the key players I would call true lefties and others true righties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

There may be some far right parties which are racist capitalist parties - but I'm not aware of any. Are you?

---

Right wing of the SVP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Currently, I'm not aware of any except the Tea Party. I was mostly thinking historically, given my fetishes, that the Nazis weren't really a radical left movement. But some of the key players I would call true lefties and others true righties.

---

The key economic difference between right and left wing parties is the emphasis on individualism vs. collectivism. Do you think the Nazis were more individualist or collectivist when it came to economics? In general, nationalist parties are left-wing economically because they want some form of national self-sufficiency, which privileges the state or nation over the individual. For the most part, "right wing" dictatorships tend to be ones that practice crony capitalism and don't have a coherent economic ideology (there are also a handful of military juntas, like Chile's).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The key economic difference between right and left wing parties is the emphasis on individualism vs. collectivism. Do you think the Nazis were more individualist or collectivist when it came to economics? In general, nationalist parties are left-wing economically because they want some form of national self-sufficiency, which privileges the state or nation over the individual. For the most part, "right wing" dictatorships tend to be ones that practice crony capitalism and don't have a coherent economic ideology (there are also a handful of military juntas, like Chile's).

---

Are you saying Nazism was a leftist ideology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Are you saying Nazism was a leftist ideology?

---

Economically, yes. Corporatism is a left-wing ideology that has been implemented in opposition to both communism and classical liberalism. The individual is not the focus of this system; the group is. The chief desire is to avoid conflicts between different groups, which means subordinating the individual interest to the group interest. And to the extent that the private sector was allowed to exist, it was to required to serve the "national interest".

I obviously defer to your poli-sci judgements, but I would like to remind you that fascism was always meant to be the "third option" against both left and right. And National Socialism at least was very favoured among the analogues of who are today favouring Mittens.