[Magnetonium]

Tell you about the terrible decisions he made? He tried to nationalize the national petroleum industry, influenced by Chavez. But Bolivia isn'tt Venezuela and the multinationals were in no mood to allow land locked gas prone Bolivia to dictate terms the way Venezuela did, so they refused the deal offered by Morales. The end result was that Morales had to back off, but in the process he paralyzed the industry for several years, and also killed the evolving export market towards Brazil. Petrobras had been a large investor in Bolivia, and there were plans to export large quantities of natural gas to Brazil. Seeing the legal insecurity in Bolivia as Morales tried to copy the Chavez model, Petrobras backed off, and made plans to develop its own gas, which they did. So today Bolivia sits on its natural gas and can't export nearly as much as it could have.

Other mistakes? Bolivia is sitting on the world's largest lithium reserves, but they are unable to develop these because the Morales regime doesn't have the foggiest idea of how to bring in foreign investors. So they sign all sorts of stupid study agreements and don't proceed using a rational approach. I don't have the space here to describe a rational approach but I doubt there are many who do understand how this is done - and if the Morales government wants to do it right all they have to do is hire people who will tell them how it's done. Thus far they seem to think they can hire Mayan priests and a couple of guys from Belarus who used to work in the Soviet weapons industry to give them tips.

Those are two glaring examples I can give in areas in which I happen to be an expert, so i sit here and laugh watching those clowns making the dumbest moves they can make. My guess is that by next year we'll see Morales ask the Chinese to install a plant of China Cola or he'll get somebody to use the existing Coca Cola facilities to bottle something they'll call "Iyitapunti-Cola" or some bullshit like that.

And thats the WORST you can think of? Its a terrible terrible shame that Bolivian natural resources are not being exploited by foreign corporations in the name of bigger profits. Because that's the only thing those companies care about, as history shows. Multinationals dont really give a shit about making Bolivia a better country, thats not their bottom line. And besides, nationalization of country's oil and gas supplies is nothing new. Brazil has done so long ago (I don't see your criticism of Petrobras for that matter!), and many Latin American countries have followed suit. Including Argentina. Multinationals have been known to cause gross environmental violations (Ecuador???), sometimes were involved in bribing officials and heavily associated with corruption. Bolivia used to let foreigners control their oil and gas, and their gas was so cheap that Brazil had no need to develop its own gas fields. Well, now the party is over. No longer does Bolivia want to be a cheap and easy way to make money on behalf of keeping its people poor. The politicians that allowed the country to be abused and used by multinationals are out of the office, and their terrible legacy is gradually being reversed.

[Magnetonium]

Morales can't hurt Brazil or Coca-Cola or McDonald's. He can only hurt Bolivians.

McDonald's is such a dream job, right??!! Get paid minimum wage and in return make people fat, lazy and unhealthy. McDonald's is the biggest winner, not the Bolivian people. Morales is ruining the economy by doing that, eh! He's not trying to hurt Brazil, he's merely shaking off foreign control over Bolivia's resources and decision making. It seems like foreigners claim to know just exactly what is good for Bolivian people, what they've been saying for centuries. But instead we've been exploiting and colonizing Latin America for centuries. Its so easy to look at Bolivia from our perspective and our way of making money and easily assume that it will fix Bolivia. Delusional thinking.

Only people who hate Bolivians would support Evo Morales. Some people like to see what is happening in Bolivia as a funny reality tv show. "What is this crazy indian going to do next?", "Will he forbid Christianism?", "Will he change Bolivia's flag?", "Will he expel the European descendents?", but the truth is that what is happening in Bolivia is extremely sad, specially because the country is one of the poorest on Earth! He is ruining Bolivia's economy and destroying any prospect of future for the Bolivian people! And since he is now a dictator it will take decades and decades to revert his damage.

Where was all this criticism of Bolivia 7 years ago when multi-nationals were pillaging the country and water privatization was threatening to bring Bolivia into a wide-scale civil war?

Will Morales forbid Christianity? Expel white people? Well, I wonder ... I suppose it wouldn't make sense that Bolivian Vice President is a white guy. Álvaro Marcelo García Linera. Look him up.

All this nonsense is sounding like borderline racism.

Morales was democratically elected and re-elected, for Christ's sake. Stop spreading false information.

[Rugoz]

I have no problem with Bolivia banning Coca-Cola because the taste of Coca Cola is horrible, too sugary and there are many superior alternatives available. Banning Coca-Cola is as great of a loss to Bolivia as it was to America after Four Loko was banned and the Bolivians would merely switch to other products, such as Coca Colla, which contains real coca extract.

IMO the orginal Coca-Cola still tastes better than any other Cola available in my country. Or what kind of alternatives are you talking about?
I once had a local-made lemonade somewhere in France and it tasted awesome.

Wouldn't mind a McDonalds ban though.

[Social_Critic]

I like Pepsi Cola, and I drink the cola drink they sell at the local supermarket (Carrefour). In the US, it's possible to find cola drinks made by supermarket chains, so Coca Cola isn't the only answer. I suppose the ban is against all foreign trademarks, otherwise Pepsi is about to capture the Bolivian market.

I think the Bolivians would have been a lot more sensible if they had said they wanted to impose a tax on sugary drinks in general (all colas and carbonated beverages) because they cause dental decay and weight problems, and start a campaign in the media explaining that such drinks are not healthy. This is the type of approach I think makes sense because it is done to improve public health.

[Quantum]

Or what kind of alternatives are you talking about?

Alternatives such as Fentimans Curiosity Cola, which tastes much better than Coca-Cola and doesn't represent a world that I oppose, so I can see why the Bolivians would wish to ban that crappy American brand from their country and I wish that other countries would follow their lead in banning it, along with similar trash products.

[Social_Critic]

Hey, guys, I forgot Magnetorium gave me a lot of material to grind with the following quote!

Its a terrible terrible shame that Bolivian natural resources are not being exploited by foreign corporations in the name of bigger profits. Because that's the only thing those companies care about, as history shows. Multinationals dont really give a shit about making Bolivia a better country, thats not their bottom line. And besides, nationalization of country's oil and gas supplies is nothing new. Brazil has done so long ago (I don't see your criticism of Petrobras for that matter!), and many Latin American countries have followed suit. Including Argentina.

Well, let's see.

1. Bolivia is still trying to work with foreign corporations, which intend to invest in Bolivia to make profits.
2. Being a consultant for greedy multinationals, I can confirm they mostly worry about profits. Sometimes management gets warped and they worry more about their own bonuses, which really pisses me off, because I keep telling them over and over the bottom line is return on shareholder equity, which has to be kept at reasonable level, not too high, not too low, for the company to survive.
3. Multinationals wishing to invest in Bolivia do give a shit about making Bolivia a better country, because this makes their business more profitable. They are not willing to lose money to make Bolivia a better country, it's up to Bolivians to take care of that problem.
4. Nationalization of a country's oil and gas reserves (supplies is the wrong term) is not new. it's been shown to be counterproductive. Brazil may have done it a long time ago, but today there are lots and lots of foreign multinationals investing in Brazil's oil industry. Argentina didn't nationalize the oil industry, they stole a fraction of the YPF shares owned by Repsol - this move is already misfiring and Argentina is close to having an economic crisis because Cristina is such a jerk. Shows the Argentinians for electing a bipolar chick who can't do maths.

[Magnetonium]

Well, let's see.

1. Bolivia is still trying to work with foreign corporations, which intend to invest in Bolivia to make profits.
2. Being a consultant for greedy multinationals, I can confirm they mostly worry about profits. Sometimes management gets warped and they worry more about their own bonuses, which really pisses me off, because I keep telling them over and over the bottom line is return on shareholder equity, which has to be kept at reasonable level, not too high, not too low, for the company to survive.
3. Multinationals wishing to invest in Bolivia do give a shit about making Bolivia a better country, because this makes their business more profitable. They are not willing to lose money to make Bolivia a better country, it's up to Bolivians to take care of that problem.
4. Nationalization of a country's oil and gas reserves (supplies is the wrong term) is not new. it's been shown to be counterproductive. Brazil may have done it a long time ago, but today there are lots and lots of foreign multinationals investing in Brazil's oil industry. Argentina didn't nationalize the oil industry, they stole a fraction of the YPF shares owned by Repsol - this move is already misfiring and Argentina is close to having an economic crisis because Cristina is such a jerk. Shows the Argentinians for electing a bipolar chick who can't do maths.

You're biased, to say the least. Your political direction and views are influenced by the fact that you work for a multinational corporation. However I see that unlike corporations, you have some logic and understanding of the issue - at least by admitting that profits is their bottom line. Multinationals have obligations to their shareholders, not the Bolivian people. They really don't have any room for giving donations to Bolivian people, unless its for their own benefit.

I personally think that both the foreign corporations and nationalistic interests have made mistakes. I don't quite support Chavez or Morales like you may think, I know they have flaws are are blinded by anti-Americanism to the point where it affects their decision making. They do have the right idea to make their countries a better place for their people. Fixing those problems is a whole different story. But I do realize why those countries are so poor and had internal problems for much of their existence. And it does not matter what leadership comes along, be it pro-American or socialist. USA's history of meddling and intervention in Latin America is an ugly legacy of poverty, corruption, war scars and organized crime.

I think that foreign corporations are needed to help Bolivia develop its huge natural resources. Bolivia needs their expertise, equipment and investment to get the extraction going. The problem is that multinationals want a chunk of the business to maximize their profit, while the government has trust issues and wants to maximize their own profit share. The difference is that multinationals take the profits out of the country, while the government takes the money and spends it on the country and its people.

On the other hand - today's Brazil is not a pushover, they are powerful enough and not manipulated from the outside. They have the ability to make economic and business deals with other countries that are beneficial for Brazilian people. The center of gravity in South America is in Brazil, not Venezuela. Chavez has political influence in the region because of his anti-American rhetoric, but business-wise all eyes are on Brazil.

[Soulflytribe]

Brazil has done so long ago (I don't see your criticism of Petrobras for that matter!), and many Latin American countries have followed suit. Including Argentina.

Petrobrás can't even be called a "State Company". Heck, half of the company is privately owned! The seventh richest man in the world is rich because he owns a company called OGX, which explores oil in Brazil. So, no, Brazil is not Bolivia. At least not yet.

[Rugoz]

^

According to wiki the state owns 64% of petrobas. And looking at its history its clear the government is behind it.

Another example would be norway's Statoil.

[Social_Critic]

Here's STATOIL's Ownership breakdown:

http://www.statoil.com/en/InvestorCentr ... fault.aspx

The state holds a majority of the shares, but they behave more like a multinational. I think Petrobras is similar. The most private-like national oil company is Ecopetrol, Colombia's state oil company, they are well managed. The worst in Latin America are PDVSA and Petroecuador. Pemex is in between.

I don't know about the Middle East companies first hand because I mostly consult for US and Latin American companies, but I understand the Kuwaitis are kinda slow and stodgy. Most state owned companies perform like very slow turtles, use old technology and have very cushy deals with their unions.

[Rugoz]

The state holds a majority of the shares, but they behave more like a multinational. I think Petrobras is similar. The most private-like national oil company is Ecopetrol, Colombia's state oil company, they are well managed. The worst in Latin America are PDVSA and Petroecuador. Pemex is in between.

Ah I see, if state-owned and founded companies are well managed, we must call them private, or most "private-like", otherwise it would be against our simple worldview

[Smertios]

According to wiki the state owns 64% of petrobas. And looking at its history its clear the government is behind it.

The state controls directly 54% of the company. Those are the shares they are not willing to privatize, to guarantee they are the sole majority partners in the business. The remaining 10% you list are privately owned by the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES), which is a public company, but administer those shares independently from the government, and the Brazilian sovereign wealth fund, which works pretty much like the sovereign wealth funds of any other country; 5% each. The sovereign fund is basically a state-owned investment fund. They buy stock in any company according to the state's interest, but do so in a private manner (as if they were any other company).

The only share that is legally and technically state-owned, and can't have the stocks commercialized in stock exchanges are those 54%. The BNDES executives can decide when to sell and/or buy shares as any other player. The same for the sovereign fund (though that depends on the direct involvement of the government). But those 54% belong to the government and can't be commercialized without the company's structure being changed by official legislation.

Ah I see, if state-owned and founded companies are well managed, we must call them private, or most "private-like", otherwise it would be against our simple worldview

No offense, but you are showing a strong lack of knowledge about Brazilian corporate law. Not that I would expect you to have that knowledge. But the point is that Petrobras is not a state-owned company, and that is recognized by law.

In Brazilian law, state-owned companies are called 'public companies' (empresas públicas) and commercializing shares of those companies is illegal. Those companies are 100% owned by the state, and the government can't sell stock in the market, unless they have the Congress change the status of the company by law. The BNDES, which I mentioned before, falls into this category. Most times, state-owned companies exist because there is a legal state monopoly over that business, so the private sector can't take part. This is the case, for example, of postal services. The only company allowed to deal with and transport mail in Brazil is the state company (called 'Correios'). But in some cases, there are public companies without a legal monopoly. The BNDES is an example. Another famous example is the 'Caixa Econômica Federal', which is a state-owned bank. Though 'Caixa' —as we call it— is also involved in administering lotteries (which are a state monopoly over here).

Now, Petrobras does not fit that criteria. The type of corporation that Brazilian corporate law defines Petrobras as is called 'mixed-economy society' (sociedade de economia mista or sociedade de capital misto). That is basically the definition we use to semi-public companies, where part of the stock is held by the state and cannot be commercialized (like those 54% of Petrobras), and part of the stock is private and dealt in stock exchanges (46% in the case of Petrobras), even if the government might unilaterally buy part of that private stock and sell it later. These companies are not technically S/A's, but they use that term to refer to themselves, due to the historical use — for example, the ful name of Petrobras is 'Petróleo Brasileiro S/A' (which roughly means "Brazilian Oil Inc.").

Now S/A or S.A. is an acronym we use for sociedade anônima, which translates as 'anonymous society', and is basically equivalent to an 'incorporation' (Inc.) in American and British corporate law. One of the main attributes of an S/A, just like an incorporation, is the fact that ownership is transferable, either fully or partially. That means that any shareholder can privately and individually commercialize his stocks in the market. Vale, for example, is in this category.

The fourth common type of companies in Brazil is the one reserved for small business, which we simply refer to as 'limited society' (sociedade limitada) and we normally use 'Ltda.' in the company's name for that (compare it with Ltd. in American and British corporate law). Ownership in this kind of company cannot be transfered at will, as it happens with S/A's, unless the company is fully redesigned. The 'limited' vs. 'anonymous' in the name is referred to this characteristic, actually.

Now, Petrobras used to be a public company, till, 1997, when the government ended the oil exploration state monopoly and allowed private companies to enter that industry. They also transformed Petrobras in a mixed-economy company in the process. And since then, the government avoided interfering directly into the company's issues, till the late Lula government, when they started doing so.

Personally, I have nothing against public companies, as long as there is no state monopoly. Petrobras and Caixa work pretty well, in my opinion. And they generate money for the state without the need of raising taxes as well, which is definitely a plus. But every service that used to be a monopoly in Brazil —mining, oil exploration, telephony etc— was highly expensive and lacked quality. After they gave up on it, the quality of those services rose greatly, while the prices dropped. I remember that when I was a little kid, I was one of the few people in the neighborhood and in my class whose family could afford a telephone. And even then, the line would fail every other day. When telephony was privatized in 1998, everyone started buying phones. Now we have several companies competing in the market and the service rarely fails. Now, with water and electricity distribution (which are still state monopolies), things are completely different...

[Rugoz]

54>50, there is really not much more to say here.

[Soulflytribe]

54>50, there is really not much more to say here.

Actually, it's neither 54%, nor 50%. It's 50.2%.
http://www.investidorpetrobras.com.br/en/governance/capital-ownership/

And the best way to explore oil is doing what the americans do.
Let private companies explore it and allow them to compete against each other. Just ask for huge amounts of royalties. That's why the gasoline in the US is so cheap (compared to the rest of the world) and they produce more oil than Iran. The more State intervention you have, the more corruption and incompetence you will get.

[Smertios]

54>50, there is really not much more to say here.

So, you are ignoring all the points I made with a one-line post like that?

The company is not considered a state-controlled company by Brazilian law. Period. The S.A. in the end of the name should be more than enough to show that, as none of the state companies in Brazil actually have that in their names (Correios, Caixa, EMBRAPA, BNDES etc as opposed to 'Petrobras S.A.')...

[Social_Critic]

Rugoz, as a general rule, privately owned companies do perform a lot better than state owned companies. There's a very simple principle involved:

State owned companies are usually not allowed to fail. They are usually monopolies or near monopolies. When they have to, they receive preferential treatment, subsidies, or whatever else they need to survive even if they are performing poorly.

Private companies, on the other hand, are usually allowed to fail, which means they have to be a lot meaner and leaner, and perform better just to stay alive. This doesn't mean some private companies aren't horribly managed. Some, like say the large banks, are not allowed to fail - which explains why they are such lousy performers and why I really don't object to having those banks nationalized, broken up into smaller pieces, and then selling the pieces while putting in place rules to stop them from merging again.

I realize this is a fairly specialized topic many of you don't get too deep into, but this is the basic reason why socialism sucks and capitalism beats it. A lesson learned by the Chinese as they move towards savage capitalism and away from communism.

[Potemkin]

State owned companies are usually not allowed to fail. They are usually monopolies or near monopolies. When they have to, they receive preferential treatment, subsidies, or whatever else they need to survive even if they are performing poorly.

Private companies, on the other hand, are usually allowed to fail, which means they have to be a lot meaner and leaner, and perform better just to stay alive. This doesn't mean some private companies aren't horribly managed. Some, like say the large banks, are not allowed to fail - which explains why they are such lousy performers and why I really don't object to having those banks nationalized, broken up into smaller pieces, and then selling the pieces while putting in place rules to stop them from merging again.

I would suggest that more and more private companies are becoming "too big to fail", as capitalism leads over time to an increasing accumulation and centralisation of capital. This is creating a situation which Marx described as "monopoly capitalism", in which either a single company dominates the market or a small group of big players agree to divvy up the market between them. This, of course, means ruin for the small capitalists and for the petty bourgeois class in general, who become proletarianised, and the monopoly capitalists may even be able to capture the state apparatus. However, it also leads to a gradually increasing state intervention in the economy, since all these "too big to fail" monopoly capitalists have to be periodically bailed out by the taxpayer. After all, the privatisation of profits and the socialisation of losses is at least a form of socialisation, no matter how partial and one-sided. This is why Lenin repeatedly asserted that monopoly capitalism and state socialism are merely two rungs on the same ladder; it is easy to step from one to the other, and in fact it will become necessary to step from one to the other, to avoid repeated periodic crises and bailouts.

[Social_Critic]

I agree that, in some cases, some companies are being allowed to become too big. However, this is evident to any of us who work with large companies. And the issue isn't only "too big to fail", it's also the built-in inefficiency when an organization is too large for management to understand what's going on in the trenches.

Quoting Lenin, Marx, and other commie authors is somewhat quaint, because things have changed a lot since their days, and a lot of what they said and observed was quite limited in scope. I wouldn't be building a world view based on what those guys wrote, because it's as if you were trying to describe how to build a Mars lander quoting from Jules Verne.

What's the main difference? Today markets are much more wide open, and trade can be carried out incredibly fast when compared to 120 to 150 years ago. We also have communications and information systems much more sophisticated and comprehensive than available to anybody in Marx and Lenin's time. I would also like to add that neither Marx, nor Engels, nor Lenin ever developed a good sense for the "backoffice" functions - this is very evident from the way they write, they convey a very superficial and fairly ignorant understanding of the systems involved. On top of that, they have absolutely no idea of how human nature works, or how we are wired genetically. This seems to be a common problem with communists. Lenin was quite a bit more pragmatic about this particular topic, and was quite open when he said that to build new socialist man it was necessary to destroy man, and rubuild him. What he didn't understand was that if he tried it the dictatorship of the proletariate would lead to Kim Jong Un playing god as his people eat tree bark.

When I was living in Venezuela, I had the opportunity to talk to people who were very close to Herr Fuehrer Commander of the Universe Chavez, and it became clear to me that even the "smarter" people working in that regime were people who didn't really know how capitalism worked, how it could be tweaked, what had to be destroyed, what had to be encouraged. In general, they were a mix of poorly educated activists who had spent their time in university protesting and writing graffiti (and reading Marx and Lenin), and older professor types who had a theoretical understanding of how a capitalist economy works, and what "corporation" means, but didn't have the foggiest idea of how a complex system works, or how to regulate it efficiently. This is the hallmark of these "socialist" wanabe communist regimes, they tend to be run by a mixture of megalomaniacs, crooks, thugs, and people who just don't know what they're doing. This is why they always fail.

[Potemkin]

I agree that, in some cases, some companies are being allowed to become too big. However, this is evident to any of us who work with large companies. And the issue isn't only "too big to fail", it's also the built-in inefficiency when an organization is too large for management to understand what's going on in the trenches.

It should not be too difficult to gather such information. It seems to me that the problem with such large organisations is that they are trying to manage them using techniques and structures which are more appropriate for a small organisation. It's rather like the Roman Empire during the Republican period. They need to switch to a Principate.

Quoting Lenin, Marx, and other commie authors is somewhat quaint, because things have changed a lot since their days, and a lot of what they said and observed was quite limited in scope. I wouldn't be building a world view based on what those guys wrote, because it's as if you were trying to describe how to build a Mars lander quoting from Jules Verne.

The same logic also applies to Adam Smith and David Ricardo et al. That doesn't stop the pro-capitalists from creating an 'Adam Smith Institute' &c, does it?

What's the main difference? Today markets are much more wide open, and trade can be carried out incredibly fast when compared to 120 to 150 years ago. We also have communications and information systems much more sophisticated and comprehensive than available to anybody in Marx and Lenin's time. I would also like to add that neither Marx, nor Engels, nor Lenin ever developed a good sense for the "backoffice" functions - this is very evident from the way they write, they convey a very superficial and fairly ignorant understanding of the systems involved. On top of that, they have absolutely no idea of how human nature works, or how we are wired genetically. This seems to be a common problem with communists. Lenin was quite a bit more pragmatic about this particular topic, and was quite open when he said that to build new socialist man it was necessary to destroy man, and rubuild him. What he didn't understand was that if he tried it the dictatorship of the proletariate would lead to Kim Jong Un playing god as his people eat tree bark.

How is any of this 'analysis' relevant to my argument? And do you really believe that 'human nature' is genetically hardwired into us? Are we fruit flies or something?

When I was living in Venezuela, I had the opportunity to talk to people who were very close to Herr Fuehrer Commander of the Universe Chavez, and it became clear to me that even the "smarter" people working in that regime were people who didn't really know how capitalism worked, how it could be tweaked, what had to be destroyed, what had to be encouraged. In general, they were a mix of poorly educated activists who had spent their time in university protesting and writing graffiti (and reading Marx and Lenin), and older professor types who had a theoretical understanding of how a capitalist economy works, and what "corporation" means, but didn't have the foggiest idea of how a complex system works, or how to regulate it efficiently. This is the hallmark of these "socialist" wanabe communist regimes, they tend to be run by a mixture of megalomaniacs, crooks, thugs, and people who just don't know what they're doing. This is why they always fail.

You're not presenting any real analysis, just anecdotes and vague, sweeping generalisations about personality. I know that you're smarter than this, S_C. Try to make an effort please.

[Social_Critic]

Potemkin, you just walked into a meat grinder (figuratively speaking, of course) when you said

do you really believe that 'human nature' is genetically hardwired into us? Are we fruit flies or something?

The answer is yes, human nature is genetically hardwired into us. I wouldn't say we're like fruit flies, we're closer to chimpanzees. If you want to use an insect analogue, we're a little bit like termites.

Because communist "philosophy" bases so much on the destruction of man to build "new socialist man", I've devoted quite a bit of thought and study to this topic (that is, is our nature hard wired or is it something we learn?). The latest I have learned is that we're genetically wired to behave and learn in certain ways which convey a superior ability to survive. Human nature isn't micromanaged by our genes, but it seems the genes do predispose us to behave in a certain way, and of course there's individual, group, and cultural variables allowed to function, probably because allowing some diversity is good for the species' survival.

I'll give you an example, human beings in all cultures tend to avoid incest. Studies show we tend to avoid sex with individuals with whom we were closely associated during the first 30 months of life. A very interesting study using Israeli children raised in socialist kibbutz nurseries was a real eye opener in this field, because as it turned out these children, even though they were not related siblings, avoided marrying each other. They weren't taught to behave this way, their genes dictated this behavior.

I realize many educated in the Social Sciences in the 20th century, and specifically those who think we can be re-built to become good communists in a new Marxist utopian society will object to what I write here, but if you refuse the evidence, and it's piling up mile high as science unravels what we are, then you're just hiding your head in the sand.

We are what we are because our genes programmed us to be this way, in a sense we're just hairless apes with the ability to form large groups and communicate with each other very effectively. We are wired to be both selfish and altruistic, because our individual survival also depends on the survival of our tribe. This means we are finelly balanced between "good and evil". And God has nothing to do with it.

We are a lucky species, survived near extinction several times, and have been able to rise to dominate the planet, but we're nevertheless animals, and human nature is a result of our genes, and nothing else.