Talk:Ferrocarriles Argentinos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the Mapneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this map request. |
[edit] Menemist phrase
I think I've just put a sort of Menemist phrase in the article, with that of the trade union. Sounds like if good Me*em had given the railway to its workers; on the other hand, just saying that the UF is even more corrupted than the CGT, would ve POV. Can someone rephrase that, please? :).
- I think I get what you say, but I'm not really familiar with the history of railways in Argentina. Maybe instead of "give" we could say "turned over" or something like that. What kind of transaction was it, exactly? OTOH the moral quality of the UF (or the CGT) is pretty much irrelevant to this article. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- The Belgrano Cargas was 'extracted' from Ferrocarriles Argentinos and converted into BCSA, Belgrano Cargas S.A. In 1999, after many failed attempts of privatization, I'm not sure if 99% or 100% of its shares were given to the UF; nevertheless, it was a concession and not a sale because BCSA had itself a concession: the line itself, including railways, signals, convoys and stations, passed from FA to the ENABIF (Ente Nacional Administrador de Bienes Ferroviarios), then renamed as ONABE (Organismo Nacional Administrador de Bienes del Estado). It should be noted that passenger long-distance services in the Ferrocarril General Belgrano were cancelled during the last military dictatorship, that's why we're only talking about cargo lines.
-
- The UF leaders had fluent contacts with Me*em's administration, and as nada de lo que deba ser estatal, permanecerá en manos del Estado (R. Dromi dixit), the line was granted to them given the impossibility of concessing it to a private investor. From 1999 to 2005 the UF invested nothing talking of investion, and so most of the Belgrano Cargas is now inoperative. You'll remember that 2 or 3 months ago the main newspapers were talking about the renationalization of the BC; now that has been cancelled and the UF will give 73% of its shares to a joint venture between SOCMA and some Chinese investors who want to export soy though the Pacific.
-
-
- I think I get it now, mostly. Now, Belgrano Cargas was a Sociedad Anónima? Who were its partners (socios), if it was still property of the state? I see you know what you're talking about, why don't you soften the POV as you deem appropriate and insert the above into the article? It's a nice piece of research you've got there. Do you have sources, references, etc.? Especially Dromi's memorable expression of Menemist policy on the role of the state. :) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the Belgrano Cargas was a Sociedad Anónima since the mid-nineties; I should research a bit more to find out the exact year when it was taken out from FA. I think it was 1993. The society was at first owned in a 100% by the national state, and then was transferred to the UF, just that: as FEMESA, it was a sort of ghost company created only for privatization purposes. About sources, I can back it if you think it's appropiate, but I think that we'll be OK with 2 or 3 links. If someone disagrees, he can correct it or express it here.
- PS - some English checking: "fluent" -> "fluid"; "investion" -> "investment" ("invested nothing talking of investment" doesn't sound right though!), "soy" -> "soybean", and I'm not sure about "concessing". Dromi (also for the benefit of future English-only readers of this talk page): "Nothing that should be state-owned will remain in the hands of the state". How does that make sense at all? --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hah, thanks for your help :). In fact, I think that I can produce good English with a little bit of concentration, but as we're talking informally here, I priorized fast-writing. So, what parts of my previous story do you think that can be passed to the article, and what of them should be removed? About Dromi's deep phrase, I think that only a Menemist can find any sense to that; It's like saying, we know we're evil, and so we'll continue being evil.
- I think I get it now, mostly. Now, Belgrano Cargas was a Sociedad Anónima? Who were its partners (socios), if it was still property of the state? I see you know what you're talking about, why don't you soften the POV as you deem appropriate and insert the above into the article? It's a nice piece of research you've got there. Do you have sources, references, etc.? Especially Dromi's memorable expression of Menemist policy on the role of the state. :) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
-
(backing up indent levels) Just avoid mentioning the horrible corruption of everyone involved in the story, and tell the rest as you did here, in chronological order. We can fix it later. By all means include links to references. Also, I suggest you sign your comments (use four tildes ~~~~). It's easier to keep track that way. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
