...The motives for nationalization are political as well as economic. It is a central theme of certain brands of 'state socialist' policy that the means of production, distribution and exchange, should be owned by the state on behalf of the people to allow for rational allocation and operation, and rational planning or control of the economy. Many socialists believe that public ownership enables people to exercise full democratic control over the means whereby they earn their living and provides an effective means of redistributing wealth and income more equitably. Read full entry
This entry is from Wikipedia,the leading user-contributed encyclopedia.It may not have been reviewed by professional editors(See full disclaimer)
- Official US Citizenship - Apply Today
- Apply for your United States citizenship and naturalization application. Prepare and complete online. Learn if you qualify for free.
- www.uscitizenship.info
- 1.Nationalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also ... 1972 Chilean nationalization of copper mining industry by the government of Salvador Allende. ...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N
ationalization
- 2.nationalization: Definition from Answers.com
- Na·tion·al·i·za·tion n. The act of nationalizing, or the state of being ... nationalization, acquisition and operation by a country of business enterprises ...
- http://www.answers.com/topic/n
ationalization
 |
Why would nationalization be Some economist like Roubini
and Krugman argue for
nationalization of US banks?
Why would that be a better
plan for the banks?
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
It all has to do with risk. A reasonable person who supports a market economy understands that risk and reward have to be paired. If any person or firm or bank or any entity can separate out the risk from the reward, that's a market failure. In the case of the mortgage giants that were nationalized, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, the taxpayers were on the hook for the risk, but the shareholders got all of the rewards. That kind of separation is dangerous, and it isn't really capitalism. Any time it's true that the taxpayers are on the hook for a company's risk, it makes sense to nationalize that company so that taxpayers will also, theoretically, receive the reward if things turn out good. That's the idea anyway. On the other hand it is important to remember that Krugman's an idealist who'd never admit that his model is wrong, and would argue the same medicine for any problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
What is the difference between I am supposed to write about
the historical trajectory of
US Federalism, but I want to
know if I can talk about the
paths of state duties to
nationalization?
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no difference. |
|
|
|
|
|
What does nationalization mean supposedly my bank is not
going to be nationalized, but
i don't believe anything the
company says right now..
can someone tell me what will
happen if nationalization
happens at my bank? as far as
me keeping my job, and my pay
rate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
It means I will be going to work to pay for your paycheck. |
|
|
|
|
* Indicates a required fieldAdd your knowledge or ask a question:
