Nationalisation would involve profits going to the state rather than private investors and also could involve simply using corporations solely for social needs such as public power or transport companies rather than private investor gain often in areas where subsidies are necessary.
A main aim of the capitalist state and ideology is to maintain and justify private profit and nationalisation is on the face of it counter to this. However, nationalisation can often serve an ancillary role in terms of building unprofitable infrastructure. I recall a right wing Alberta govt. in Canada at one time bought an airline because Alberta was not well serviced under the existing capitalist system. It built up the airline and eventually sold it at a profit! Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html --- On Tue, 12/9/08, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Pen-l] Why is "Nationalization" A Dirty Word in America? > To: "Progressive Economics" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 11:36 AM > Yves Smith, one of the most perceptive financial bloggers > out there > raises this question: > http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/12/why-is-nationalization-dirty-word-in_08.html > ------------------------------------------------snip > The question du jour is why does the US have such a phobia > regarding > nationalization. Per the lead-in, I suspect it has a great > deal more > to do with social conditioning than a case-by-case > assessment of > possible gains and losses. > > While the initial (correct) reflex is that undue government > interference in a well-functioning private sector is not a > good idea, > the industries in question (financial services and > automobiles) have > top players that are now abject failures on taxpayer life > support. > These companies have been exempted from market discipline > (aka > bankruptcy) thanks to state intervention. > > The very fact that they operated with minimal government > oversight, > drove themselves to the verge of bankruptcy, and managed to > make > themselves so essential that they cannot be permitted to > collapse says > they cannot be left in their former hands (incumbent > management is > either colossal incompetent, amazingly corrupt and > scheming, or both). > > [...] > > That is a long-winded way of saying that government > inefficiency and > incompetence is not a given, as is often depicted in the > US. The > demonization of government service has probably discouraged > able > people from seeking public sector jobs. Even so, some areas > still get > high marks (the FDIC). And the continued disparagement of > government > serves as cover for those who want subsidies and rescues > but hope to > avoid the demands that should properly go with them. > > > > > -raghu. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
