I hate socialism but..... shouldn't a nations resources be nationalized?

[notig]

It seems kind of wrong to me to see nations around the world with the most resources being the poorest.  I love capitalism but ... should national resources really be exploitable? To me it means it will lead to two things: environmentally destructive practices possibly. But also the siphoning of wealth from one country to another country.

[1714608200]

1714608200

[grondilu]

It seems kind of wrong to me to see nations around the world with the most resources being the poorest. ... But also the siphoning of wealth from one country to another country.

I don't get your reasoning.       How exactly do you think this siphoning happens and why do you think nationalizing resources would change anything to it?

[Balthazar]

There is no sense in this sentences. Because phrase "I hate socialism but I like capitalism" sounds as "I hate  dollar but I like martini". This things has no actual conflicts and there is a huge possibility to coexistance in the same economy.

[Topazan]

You should look into Georgism.

[nwbitcoin]

If a nations resources are nationalised, what is the difference? 
Who gains?
It seems to me all that happens is you create a closed shop for only the government's friends.

[inge]

Much depend on how resources and richdom are distributed among people. If a land has a corrupted government, than nationalization will only lead to more wealth for the “elite” leaving the rest of the people in poverty.



Regards, Inge

[herzmeister]

all this discussion of markets vs socialism is often based on false dichotomies.

A nation is an economic player just like any other. They have to household with their resources, and in this day and age, they also have to compete and be "profitable". Sure, they have special privileges due to historical reasons, but nevertheless, countries like Venezuela are less powerful than most international cartels.

Still they own their territory after all, and can decide what to do with it. They can decide whether to sell resources out to these international cartels, or whether to administer them themselves. Just like a business that has to choose where to expand its domain and where to withdraw.

[Richy_T]

Isn't SOP that the raw resources are the property of the state but they lease the rights to exploit (often for next to nothing admittedly).

[Brunic]

I completely agree with that. One of our local politician leader is trying to promote the nationalization of our resources since, like he said: "What nobody has made should be owned by everybody."

[Mike Christ]

I completely agree with that. One of our local politician leader is trying to promote the nationalization of our resources since, like he said: "What nobody has made should be owned by everybody."

EVEN LAND?

[Richy_T]

I completely agree with that. One of our local politician leader is trying to promote the nationalization of our resources since, like he said: "What nobody has made should be owned by everybody."

And controlled by a privileged few.

[Brunic]

EVEN LAND?

Well yeah, where do you think the resources are? I don't know for other countries, but in Canada, even when you "own" a part of land, you only own the surface. If there's a gold mine under your house, any mining corporation can buy a mining claim for the gold mine under your house and own the underground of your land. If they need to dig, you need to get the fuck out, their private rights goes over yours.

If I have to choose, I prefer a lot having my land owned by a state corporation instead of a private corporation. At least, I can vote for the government controlling the state corporation.

And controlled by a privileged few.

Yeah sure, the administration will be made by a couple of persons. Like I said before, at least, I can vote for the government, but I can't for the private firms. Also, the profit made from the raw resources come back in our collective pockets, instead of going into the pockets of a few shareholders.

[Mike Christ]

EVEN LAND?

Well yeah, where do you think the resources are? I don't know for other countries, but in Canada, even when you "own" a part of land, you only own the surface. If there's a gold mine under your house, any mining corporation can buy a mining claim for the gold mine under your house and own the underground of your land. If they need to dig, you need to get the fuck out, their private rights goes over yours.

If I have to choose, I prefer a lot having my land owned by a state corporation instead of a private corporation. At least, I can vote for the government controlling the state corporation.

And controlled by a privileged few.

Yeah sure, the administration will be made by a couple of persons. Like I said before, at least, I can vote for the government, but I can't for the private firms. Also, the profit made from the raw resources come back in our collective pockets, instead of going into the pockets of a few shareholders.

I don't like it.  It still gives favor to the guy with the most money.  I hate that guy.  His name is probably Steve.

[MonadTran]

I'll let myself remove from your question emotional and illusory stuff. The concepts of "nation" and "country" are illusory and are in complete contradiction with basic human rights. Your love / hate are emotional and not related to your question. What's left is this:

Should resources be exploitable? To me it means environmentally destructive practices possibly.

Now, I have a few questions.

What's "resources"? Like, I am not allowed to burn wood, coal, oil, uranium, build hydroelectric powerplants, dig for stone, copper, iron, eat animals or plants? Just because this might cause some damage to the environment? Ok. But I will die from starvation. And you won't have too much time to be happy for the environment, because you will die too.

Let's suppose you meant something else. Say, some resources, like oil, should belong to everybody, and everyone should have a vote on how to use them. Fine. Suppose you have that vote - you are a shareholder of Worldwide Oil, Inc. Where do you find oil? Where would your company get money to build an oil well? Are you willing to participate in shareholders' meetings? Who's going to pay employees? Are you really interested in working on this? If not, wouldn't it be better for you to sell your share to a person who knows what to do with it, and has the resources necessary to start the business, so that you could buy a share in a well-established company instead? Can shareholders of Worldwide Oil, Inc. decide for a split-up into American Oil, Inc., Asian Oil, Inc., and so on, to make it more manageable? You see where I am getting it. We might end up with something that is almost like what we have now.

[Monster Tent]

I think the main problem is companies benefitting from resources and failing to pay the true cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

For example producing plastic bottles to sell water the cost of the product doesnt reflect the damage it does to the environment.

[grondilu]

Say, some resources, like oil, should belong to everybody, and everyone should have a vote on how to use them. Fine. Suppose you have that vote - you are a shareholder of Worldwide Oil, Inc. Where do you find oil? Where would your company get money to build an oil well? Are you willing to participate in shareholders' meetings? Who's going to pay employees? Are you really interested in working on this? If not, wouldn't it be better for you to sell your share to a person who knows what to do with it, and has the resources necessary to start the business, so that you could buy a share in a well-established company instead? Can shareholders of Worldwide Oil, Inc. decide for a split-up into American Oil, Inc., Asian Oil, Inc., and so on, to make it more manageable? You see where I am getting it. We might end up with something that is almost like what we have now.

Thanks so much for pointing this out.  I really wish socialist-minded people could understand that:  ownership is not a static process, it's dynamic.  If you give something to someone, he might very well not know what to do with it and then he will sell it to someone else.  In the end, stuff end up belonging to people who are the most willing to own them:  those who are willing to pay, notably.  This is true for resources and means of production.   Giving them to people on an equal basis would only lead to a unstable economic situation which would rapidly end up back to the current situation again, at the cost of having confiscated stuff initially just to eventually fail to change anything.

[Brunic]

Say, some resources, like oil, should belong to everybody, and everyone should have a vote on how to use them. Fine. Suppose you have that vote - you are a shareholder of Worldwide Oil, Inc. Where do you find oil? Where would your company get money to build an oil well? Are you willing to participate in shareholders' meetings? Who's going to pay employees? Are you really interested in working on this? If not, wouldn't it be better for you to sell your share to a person who knows what to do with it, and has the resources necessary to start the business, so that you could buy a share in a well-established company instead? Can shareholders of Worldwide Oil, Inc. decide for a split-up into American Oil, Inc., Asian Oil, Inc., and so on, to make it more manageable? You see where I am getting it. We might end up with something that is almost like what we have now.

Thanks so much for pointing this out.  I really wish socialist-minded people could understand that:  ownership is not a static process, it's dynamic.  If you give something to someone, he might very well not know what to do with it and then he will sell it to someone else.  In the end, stuff end up belonging to people who are the most willing to own them:  those who are willing to pay, notably.  This is true for resources and means of production.   Giving them to people on an equal basis would only lead to a unstable economic situation which would rapidly end up back to the current situation again, at the cost of having confiscated stuff initially just to eventually fail to change anything.

I'm a socialist minded person and I agree with what you say. But it's more like Monster Tent said

I think the main problem is companies benefitting from resources and failing to pay the true cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

For example producing plastic bottles to sell water the cost of the product doesnt reflect the damage it does to the environment.

I have no problems with a company cutting some wood, transforming it and making awesome products. But I have certain problems with the same company clearing whole forest just because it's more efficient and "I paid for it". Or going into a country, pumping resources and getting out.

Last century, Americans company were coming in Canada, pumping iron and buying mining companies for cheap. With the same iron, they shipped it back into the US, made steel with it and sold it back to us at like 5x times the original price. I know "capitalist/freedom/etc", but this type of business doesn't create any plus-value. You just suck blood from a society and quit when there's nothing left. We were lucky, our government got stronger and somewhat stop that type of business, but other countries like a ton of them in Africa were not so lucky.

The whole pump-and-run that Americans are so good at can make money short-term. But in the long-term, it's only a take-all relationship where there's only one winner. Nationalization of resources doesn't prevent business from getting resources, its mostly to help the local society get a nice part of the profit and help control environmental damage.

[MonadTran]

I have certain problems with the same company clearing whole forest just because it's more efficient and "I paid for it".

Under true capitalism, in order to clear the whole forest, you have to buy the whole forest first. Then, in order to make further profit, you would have to either restore the whole forest, or buy another one. Kinda expensive, isn't it?

When a forest is owned by "the people", you just have to bribe "the people" (aka government), in order to chop it down. Much less expensive.

[myrkul]

When a forest is owned by "the people", you just have to bribe "the people" (aka government), in order to chop it down. Much less expensive.

Politicians are cheap, compared to actually buying massive amounts of resources.

[Richy_T]

When a forest is owned by "the people", you just have to bribe "the people" (aka government), in order to chop it down. Much less expensive.

Politicians are cheap, compared to actually buying massive amounts of resources.

Often astoundingly so. In a recent scandal here, it turned out politicians were redirecting millions of taxpayer dollars for what amounted to chump change.