Originally Posted by The Lying Dutchman

why is nationalisation of an industry a violation on free trade? isnt it just a policy choice any regime is entitled to make?

Originally Posted by The Lying Dutchman

why is nationalisation of an industry a violation on free trade? isnt it just a policy choice any regime is entitled to make?

Originally Posted by GlobalSmiles

As is the case with venezuela nationalizing an industry is usually about the saem as stealing. Some people had real assets involved and the government comes and "nationalizes" them. . .usually either straight stealing it, or giving chump rates for the property, equipment. Stealing is definitely a violation of free trade.

. . . er we are off topic I think though.

Originally Posted by smallpox

What makes you think that they would?

Originally Posted by The Lying Dutchman

It could well be argued that national resources are supposed to be in the hands of the public domain rather than in the private domain where it has been in the benefit of only few. If we look at Latin america than we see that there has often been a firesale of national industries made possible by being in the hands of elites (Bolivia for example). Free trade is not a sacred principle in developing countries with reason, fair trade is what they pursue.

Originally Posted by remingtonspaz

Well I noticed that this thread is veering far off the lane it's supposed to be, so excuse me, for I will be trying to steer the discussion back to the original topic.

But first, to answer a direct question:


Let me point out again that I currently have no idea why the U.S would invade Indonesia, and my purpose of starting this thread is to hopefully gain knowledge of how the situation above would be possible.

Back on topic,

Concluding from the posts above, should Indonesia find a huge reserve of oil in the future, then have a nationalist leader elected in the 2014 election who expels foreign investors and corporations in favor of nationalization, AND at the same time, purposefully or not, houses people labelled by the U.S as international terrorists, would that be enough reason for the U.S to attack Indonesia?

And a second question, sorry if it's a bit naive: is everything just about oil?

Thanks

Originally Posted by smallpox

Protection of supposedly infant industries can be achieved through certain subsidies and tax breaks. Nationalizing does not help in the long run -- most developed economies are trying to de-nationalize their industries for a very good reason.
Nationalization is inefficient, and ultimately hurts the low skill labour the most.

Originally Posted by The Lying Dutchman

if a nations industry is in the hands of an elite that have second homes in miami to fall back on, only the benefit of few is pursued and a firesale is an option. it is the biggest theft to block your own nation to enjoy the benefits of having an industry.

privatization hasnt helped in the long run for many countries in latin america, their choice of privatization is an internal affair and theirs only to deal with'

industry subsidies backfired in argentina for example, where manufactorers got lazy and outcompeted. it is not an alternative.

Originally Posted by smallpox

Elite? Anyways, regardless of the owner's nationality, a trade, even for labour, is beneficial to the workers and the owners.
Whether the individual is American or South American is irrelevant; the costs of production go directly into the economy of the country regardless.
Further, privatization is the only thing keeping the South American economies alive (and also all economies in the world). South America has real issues attracting investors due to stability problems and nationalist governments willing to rip private property out of investors hands just because they're not South American (further exacerbating investor confidence).
Subsidies often back fire and that is why is should be used very wisely. Subsidies in agriculture for most developed countries have also backfired and these I denounce also.