When is it beneficial to nationalize an industry?

  • 🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
    🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
It's good in emergencies, tho in 2008, it was largely a bailout to bankers, socialism for the super rich with the middling tax payer paying for the stupidity of investors and politicians. The Brits taking British Steel out of the hands of Communist China seems okay. Hopefully it'll be sold to someone effective. The Norwegians have the hyper efficient Statoil (now Equinor ESA), one of the things underpinning its well spread and massive wealth in a land that was once desperately poor, but they're Scandinavians and probably an exception proving a rule.
 
It's good in emergencies, tho in 2008, it was largely a bailout to bankers, socialism for the super rich with the middling tax payer paying for the stupidity of investors and politicians. The Brits taking British Steel out of the hands of Communist China seems okay. Hopefully it'll be sold to someone effective. The Norwegians have the hyper efficient Statoil (now Equinor ESA), one of the things underpinning its well spread and massive wealth in a land that was once desperately poor, but they're Scandinavians and probably an exception proving a rule.
Probably the strongest version of the pro-nationalization case, it shows just how narrow that case has to be.
The emergencies are justified in a limited way, with emergency, transition, and disposal, and it's much closer to crisis receivership.

I'd be careful with Equinor. Equinor is a listed company with the state as a majority shareholder, which is not the same institutional model as nationalizing broad sectors and running them as political services. Not to mention the unusually favorable conditions, what with a small high-trust population and unusually competent institutions.
Overall I'd say temporary emergency custody can sometimes be defended as damage control, state-backed bailouts often (if not always) reward failure and shift losses to taxpayers, and permanent nationalization needs a much stronger argument than "this industry is important" or "in rare cases a state-owned firm worked well"
 
Mostly during wartime. Harry Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean War due to strikes, although it was struck down by the SC.
 
Finland ran extensive amounts of national industrial programs during the cold war and they for the most part worked out quite well. The main things are to remember that they are not to be monopolies so that the private sector has to at least, provide for the niches not covered by the government factories and must above all else, exist to serve national interests. It also is wise to retain the legal mechanisms so if something is urgently needed then it can be done with minimal hassle.
 
My country (Argentina) has a gas and oil company called YPF which has been in the hands of the state for decades, it was created at the start of the 20th century by the state, it was sold, and nationalized a few decades ago, the point being that when it was in the hands of the state it was always used to do shitty populism, YPF was used to provide cheap oil and gas at a loss to make citizens happy and therefore provide more votes, who cares if it loses money right? We even had to import oil and gas because production was so low.

Now, with Javier Milei in the government, the stock price went from 3 USD to 45 USD, we had a bunch of announcements when it comes to foreign investments worth of dozens of billons of dollars (in oil and gas investments) coming to the country, we no longer need to import oil and gas, wanna know why it works so well? Because Milei's government idea is to make YPF value as high as possible so it can eventually be sold for a fuckton of money, my point is that when a company is run by the state it's ran like shit to make money from corruption and to win votes, in the strange cases when it's ran efficiently by the state it's done so because they want to sell it, companies should not be owned by the state, the incentives are not the same because state owned companies don't need to make profits.

If you want something to be done by the government for ideological reasons then create a charity and use your own money to start a company that runs at a loss or something, all of the people who agree with you should donate to it (they won't), don't bother society with your ideologically fueled stupidity, put your money where your mouth is and do it yourself.
I wonder (((who))) will buy YPF...
javiermileiWesternWall.jpeg
 
Almost never. If you want to preserve things necessary for national security and whatnot import/export controls are probably better. National companies will inevitably end up as a jobs program for the friends of the party. They also give the government an easy way to do use state funds outside the normal regulatory process. To give an example, the polish petrochemical company Orlen was buying newspapers under the last government. It also started it's own package service while our post office remains comically underfunded and retarded. Why? Weird eastern European politics.
It's beneficial when it fucks over China or individual Chinamen.
In general if you're privatizing anything, foreign state-owned companies and China in general should be barred forever form buying them.
 
It's good in emergencies, tho in 2008, it was largely a bailout to bankers, socialism for the super rich with the middling tax payer paying for the stupidity of investors and politicians.
2008 was almost entirely because the feds wanted more nigger votes. The govt. was buying junk debt, the banks knew it was junk debt, the banks told the govt it was junk, but the fed through Fred and Fann wanted the housing crisis over with now now now so either sell us the debt or we'll find someone else (also its illegal to refuse to take out the loan lmao)
 
When they start clamoring for infinity jeets into the country to save money, so right now and all of them.
 
XL pretty much summarized it well. Public monopolies never go away, whereas private monopolies can be susceptible to entry, and public monopolies are not necessarily operated like profit-maximizing firms. (Neither are private firms above a certain scale operated like profit-maximizing firms. They both suffer the same problem: at mass scale there are so many obstacles between consequences and decision-makers that all management becomes political in nature.)

When can you justify public ownership in the sense of mandatory cooperates and what not?
Natural monopolies: Utilities (so, in other words, we're most of the way there), to some extent certain infrastructure; historically, you don't really need to nationalize the airlines or shipping companies but you nationalize sometimes the airport or the harbor, for example)
Network monopolies: Basically tech utilities (AI, social media, search engines), although I've yet to hear anybody explain to me how Google actually hurts me and I'd be terrified of government censorship

Technical monopolies (high economy of scale industries, mostly found in heavy industry) I think are really dangerous to mess with.

Potentially things where it makes sense to vertically integrate the provision of goods/services that feed into public goods/services.
So, state industry to produce armaments/military equipment, potentially, the provision of law enforcement, prisons and schools and what not potentially. I mean, most everything the govt does IS in that sense vertically integrated. It wasn't always so. There was NO investigative agency for the US in the past, they literally contracted that out to private companies like the Pinkertons before the FBI. Similarly you've got charter schools and what not. So when does it make sense to vertically integrate? Then that's when you'd want the govt doing it. And that doesn't necessarily mean banning private competitors.
 
Utilities and transportation should be nationalized, along with healthcare and pretty much anything else that's either strategically important or a key input into a strategically important industry.

Beyond that, I don't see a lot of benefit.

EDIT: Also the banking system other than credit unions
 
Última edición:
Utilities and transportation should be nationalized, along with healthcare and pretty much anything else that's either strategically important or a key input into a strategically important industry.

Beyond that, I don't see a lot of benefit.
I would add stuff like payment processors.
 
Utilities and transportation should be nationalized, along with healthcare and pretty much anything else that's either strategically important or a key input into a strategically important industry.

Beyond that, I don't see a lot of benefit.
there should be some nationalized housing too
 
Never unless there is no other choice as it is always an absolute disaster. Thus the only industries that should be state owned would be ones directly linked to army and even there it ought to be limited to minimum. Roads should be private with exception to roads that would be logistics highways to front during war and so should be healthcare with exception of field hospitals etc.
 
Utilities and transportation should be nationalized, along with healthcare and pretty much anything else that's either strategically important or a key input into a strategically important industry.
"Strategically important" is not a limited principle
It is exactly the kind of phrase that expands until it covers almost everything
Utilities are strategically important, so is transportation, so is healthcare, so is banking, so are payment processors, so is housing, so is food, so is communication, so is computing, so are the industries that supply those industries
At that point you are talking about no less than total political control over the basic skeleton of economic life
And the more essential the service is, the worse that problem becomes. If a restaurant is bad, I can just stop going there. If a bank, payment network, housing provider, healthcare system, transport system, or communications provider is politically controlled, then exit becomes much harder. The customer is in every case a captive funder and in many cases a captive user.

Airlines. I’m sick of bailing these niggers out every couple of years.
This here is pointing in the opposite direction too
If firms keep getting bailed out, then the problem is not that they are "too private", it's that losses are already being socialized. The cure is not to formalize that failure as state ownership. Instead, just stop insulating bad decisions from their consequences

I stand by what I've been saying all throughout this thread. "this is important" does not in any way, shape, or form get you to "the state should own it". Instead, it's just the opposite. The more important something is, the less acceptable it is to put it under coercive political control.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo