0
   

Cross-border collaboration

 
 
tintin
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 08:18 pm
Here is some English tex I'm trying to understand ...

Cross-border collaboration is experiencing a modest renaissance among smaller international oil cartels based in South America, even if business from a joint venture by several cartels is less brisk and profitable than by a monopoly. One upside of international cooperation is that a combined effort may allow these cartels to jointly win government subsidies in overseas markets where they would not have been able to operate.

Here is some of the wording making the entire thing hardy . I'm putting down what I understand .

modest renaissance = modest growth

oil cartels = tried to find it in google define:cartels .....not happy with the meaning . Can you please explain what does this mean ?

less brisk = > less possibility ?

one upside = > one good news .

Are these correct ?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 669 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 09:09 pm
@tintin,
Renaissance is French, and is used so commonly in English, that it is become a common noun. Renaissance means a rebirth. Therefore, Cross-border collaboration is experiencing a modest renaissance . . . , means that cooperation between neighboring nations is experience a modest rebirth. A cartel is a group of businesses or nations which operate together to seek an advantage. An oil cartel would be a group of oil companies, or oil producing nations which operated together in the hope of getting the most money from their product. Brisk in this sense means fast and heavy, so, . . . even if business from a joint venture by several cartels is less brisk and profitable than by a monopoly. means that the business from the joint venture does not move along so rapidly, and does not enjoy the same heavy volume of business on the part of a monopoly.

Yes, "one upside" (terrible abuse of the language) does mean one piece of good news.
tintin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 09:26 pm
@Setanta,
if I understand you correctly , then are you saying , monopoly bringing more business and profit than joint-venture ? or in other other words a single company making more money than group of companies jointly ?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 09:33 pm
@tintin,
That's almost it . . . however, a monopoly is not just simply a single company, it is a single company with the exclusive right to trade in a particular product. If there were an oil monopoly in a nation, the company, and that company only, would be allowed to buy and sell oil--and so, of course, could set the most advantageous prices for itself.
0 Replies
 
tintin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 02:05 am
feeling better now.

Can you please explain the second line i.e the part

may allow these cartels to jointly win government subsidies in overseas markets

they said 'government subsidies in overseas' .....what kind of subsidies ? I don't have any guess here . Can you please elaborate this line . an Example will be helpful to conceptualize this .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 05:25 am
Well, that is a rather mysterious line. It suggests that these cartels are composed of companies from different countries, and that they expect the governments of the separate countries to subsidize the cartel itself, even though, clearly, they are talking about a cartel which crosses international borders.

To subsidize an oil cartel, a government might pay any portion of their operating costs--exploration for new sources of oil, the cost of building petroleum product refineries, or simply by lowering or rebating taxes which would otherwise be due (a rebate is different from lowering a tax in that the tax would not be lower, but that for an unspecified period of time, the government might give back a part of a the tax, while retaining the right to demand all of the tax in any subsequent year). It is difficult for me to understand how such subsidies would work across international borders, but then, i'm not responsible for the accuracy of the material in such an article as that sentence came from. It is useful to bear in mind that journalists (i'm assuming that this is from a newspaper or magazine article) don't seem to feel they are obliged to know what they are writing about when they write it.
tintin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 11:45 am
@Setanta,
Thanks Setanta,

That was whole lot of information . That helped me a lot . Thanks for your time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Cross-border collaboration
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 05:28:46