Red_Dave said:
Regarding your pm i didnt find anything you said in this thread ofensive so i wouldnt worry.
Sure nationalised industrys are tend to be ethical in totalitarian countrys but in democracys you tend to end up with higher wages and better workers rights on the whole. Nationalisation as opossed to privitisation is seen by many experts as best for devolping countrys. For example privitising industrys is often a requirement for a country to get aid or have its debts canceld but oxfam [and a number of other n.g.os/chairtys] campains against this. I dont see many chairtys advocating a smithsonian model of free trade for africa ,its normally the opossite.....
You'll notice a difference in tone.
See it is definately difficult to compare Developed country models against developing. It's often better to look at the developed countries developing stage. In the US, Britian, France, Japan (kinda of) much of the real benefits of industrialization didn't occur until AFTER they through off the yoke of nationalization. Really Nationalized industries are another form of feudal state, except in democracies they "elect" their Lords. Sure, it's a little better, but not by much. Realize that Post WWI gemerany had some democratic traditions and plenty of nationalized industries
See, really, the primary business of the state is war and violence. Industries that are nationalized tend to be war and violence based or support the ability of the state to conduct war and violence. Railroads to move troops. Oil for fuel. Water, steel, waepons manufacture. In some cases, like the US, the state won't "own" the industry, but it functionally rules it through regulation, legislation, prices controls, import/export rules, and the like. The US government doesn't have "ownsership" of US steel makers, but it controls it very much, and demands that other industries suffer so that steel may benefit.
(The recent bout of US inpose steel tariffs on our imports, HURT 40 more people for every one it benefited, and hurt all consumers).
The state model of running this, though you may THINK it produces higher wages, is not true ON THE WHOLE. In the past British railway workers, or now Norwiegen Oil workers MIGHT be getting paid better, but since the state DOES NOT RAISE REVENUE BY MEETING CONSUMER DEMANDS, the state must suppliment the higher wages through taxation or monopoly pricing. This taxation in turn, lowers the standand of living, disposable income and wealth, for ALL PEOPLE, except those in service of the state. (ever notice how many of the richest corporations and richest people on earth, tend to either be part of the state, work in idustries that directly benefit the state, or work in league with the state for the benfit of their business? With a few exceptions of course.) What you see in most Nationalized industries are those working IN the nationalized industry, FOR THE STATE, doing well, those others who do not, suffering. Either through lower disposable incomes, Lower wages, less work, or unemployment.
It might be different if the state ran an industry like a business, but they don't nor will they ever. They run an industry, like it is part of the state, and any losses are covered by stealing from the population, and gains, are actually confered back to the state, not the people (though from time to time they may throw scraps to keep the people docile.)
The State, The people, or society are NOT synonyms, they are very different things.
All too often, people will look at the benefits produced a PART of an equation and NOT look at the detriment that MUST balance the equaltion. THAT is the danger when concerning nationalization, SOME PEOPLE clearly do benefit, and quite well, MOST people are injured as a result.
1 US steel worker to 40 US steel product producers. Saving one US steel worker's job, could put 40 people out of jobs.
What's more, is that the diverting of resources TO that nationalized industry, would prevent these resources going to where the need to have the resources is most strongly felt, resulting in higher prices for not only the steel but also from the industries resources have been diverted from.
Steel needs coal. So does some rubber (or any other industry that uses coal as a component or for fuel). If the state nationalized steel industry wants more coal, they get it, more often than not (especially since most often nationalized resources industries are present along with nationalized product industries). That means rubber industries are now hurt, becuase there is less coal, and the price goes up. That means producers that use rubber are hurt. That means comsumers who use products with rubber in them are hurt. So to benefit one industry, SEVERAL industries may be hurt, and consumers hurt on several levels.
Economics is not a linear thing. Every resource, and just about every product has mutliple uses or industries. It's a spider's web, and if you pull on one part in one way, other parts are strained, or may give way entirely, which could lead to total economic collapse.
Iron and coal (coke really right, made from coal though) are the major resources needed for steel (and of course air and water). Imagine now, ALL the things that are made from steel, iron or coal. All the steel product producers, (vehicles: cars, trucks, tractors, bulldozers, boat or plane parts, tanks, buildings, kitchen utensils, pipes, pumps, rollercoasters, bridges, computer cases and computer parts, radios, and on and on and on), or product made using iron or coal, in some way. The list is HUGE. Nationalize the steel industry, and watch all those suffer. Imagine the spider's web all being pulled toward one point, condensing the web around that point and moving that point (in 3 dimensions) away from all other points.
Snap.
