couple of questions about The U.S.

[R_P_A_S]

Usually once I learn about one thing, the rest just falls into place and makes sense. However these are some topic that I haven't grasp so I don't understand what's the reason for the U.S. goverments stand against nationalizating and sociolize medicine for example.

I heard the White House on some occassions condemn the Nationalization of resources by other countrys. I believe they said something along the lines of

"nationalization has through out the years showed us that it doesn't work intoday free market"

"it has bad negative effects on the market"

and that It "destabilizes the economy" or something close to that.

I assume they are against it because of their foreign policy. and they need to suck blood from this remote places and this areas around the world in order for THEIR Market to work, am I right? So of course they are going to oppose it when someone doesn't want to play by their rules? Am I right? or am I missing something?

here is where I FAIL to make the connection between it all.

Ok so what has the U.S. Nationalized? besides their Railroad Service? Why don't we ever hear about them Nationalizing anything?

What would happen if the next president for some miracle decides to socialize medicine? Who will hurt, or who will be pissed? etc...

[razboz]

Im no political scientist so i mght get some of the details wrong but...

I think the main reason why the US oppose nationalisation now adays is the incredible power the corporation has in the form of Lobbies and direct funding of politicians. Nationalisation abroad means the companies at home are at risk.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well nationalization is domestic control over the means of production, transportation and exchange. As well as health care and other things like that.


The US will oppose it because it is effectively a closed off market.

So, if for example, American companies wanted to buy some Indian telecommunications companies, they would be able to extract profit from those ventures (hopefully for them) and this would increase the U.S Gross National Product (GNP). If India nationalizes its telecommunications though, then the US will not be able to do that, and so will lose out.

Economic investment in another country, when you extract profit (from India) and take it back home (to the US) is part of imperialism.

US citizens are benefiting, while the Indians are losing out.

If India nationalized, then all the profit would stay with the Indian bourgeoisie and so would develop the Indian domestic economy.

Or, in a socialist country, the nationalized economy would be run democratically, meaning that it would not allowing US investment or control over the socialist economy, as it would mean the foreign bourgeoisie have control, and so it would cease to be democratic.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

"nationalization has through out the years showed us that it doesn't work intoday free market"



"it has bad negative effects on the market"



and that It "destabilizes the economy" or something close to that.

Yeah all these quotes mean is that when a country nationalized in the past, the Imperialist powers sabotaged it using their massive econimic advantages, both directly and through the influence of the economic and political institutions like the IMF and WTO which are tailored to their advantage.

[Ander]

If you look at America's foreign interventions in the 20th century, many of them, if not most, were prompted by nationalisations. When a company, bank, utility, etc. is nationalised in a country, the foreign imperialists can no longer invest and drain money from it, instead it stays within the nation itself.

If you want an example, look at Iran during the 50's. When Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalised the petroleum company there, both the British and American governments plotted to make Iran submit like a good client state should. After propaganda and sabotage campaigns, the CIA overthrew Mossadegh and replaced him with the Shah who quickly moved to reverse the nationalisation. Of course, they turned a blind eye to the brutal rule of the Shah like all of the dictators they have put into power.

[Janus]

Ok so what has the U.S. Nationalized? besides their Railroad Service? Why don't we ever hear about them Nationalizing anything?
The railroad service is no longer nationalized (though there are some gov. controlled corporations such as Amtrak) and has not been since WWI.

The US has rarely nationalized any industries though they recently did nationalize airport security but such measures are rarely every permanent.