4 ms·

What companies have been nationalized by the US, and how do we know it won’t turn out like Venezuela nationalizing their oil industry?

stevenwoo 2y ago
Since you didn't qualify your question, the US essentially nationalized almost all industrial production for World War 2 and had no problem converting it back at the end when conditions changed.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the US essentially nationalized almost all industrial production for World War 2 Source? Defence production directives don’t change ownership.
  - whycome 2y ago
    Are they directives if the manufacturers don't have a choice?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    But they do change who fundamentally has control of the company during that time.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > they do change who fundamentally has control of the company during that time No, they were contracts authorised by the War Powers Act of 1941 [1][2]. Management was conserved and largely left to its own decisions. When workers struck, mines and factories were nationalised [3], but that was the exception. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1941 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1941 [2] https://www.dcma.mil/News/Article-View/Article/2100501/a-history-of-defense-contract-administration/ https://www.dcma.mil/News/Article-View/Article/2100501/a-his... [3] https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/A_History_of_Nationalization_in_the_US-Hanna-NSP.pdf https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/A_Hist...
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > No, they were contracts authorised by the War Powers Act of 1941. That they were legally required to accept. "Boeing, you have to make X B-17s for Y dollars" is a nationalization just as much as "Boeing, we're going to use your stuff to make X B-17s".
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > That they were legally required to accept Again, source? Because to my knowledge, this wasn’t true. The requirements for public tender were lifted, which just meant contracts could be sole sourced. Those contracts were negotiated and paid for [1]. There was an element of coercion, sure. But I can find no evidence of anyone coming away from their business with the U.S. poorer. [1] https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2013/03/wwii-detail-from-war-supply-contracts/ https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2013/03/wwii-detail-from-...
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or any other officer, board, commission, or governmental corporation author- ized by the President, may acquire by purchase, donation, or other means of transfer, or may cause proceedings to be instituted in any court having jurisdiction of such proceedings, to acquire by con- demnation, any real property, temporary use thereof, or other interest therein, together with any personal property located thereon or used therewith, that shall be deemed necessary, for military, naval, or other war purposes, such proceedings to be in accordance with the Act of August 1, 1888 (25 Stat . 357), or any other applicable Federal statute, and may dispose of such property or interest therein by sale, lease, or otherwise, in accordance with section 1 (b) of the Act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat . 712) > Deliveries of material under all orders placed pursuant to the authority of this paragraph and all other naval contracts or orders and deliveries of material under all Army contracts or orders shall, in the discretion of the President, take priority over all deliveries for private account or for export. > Deliveries under any contract or order specified in this subsection (a) may be assigned priority over deliveries under any other contract or order ; and the President may require acceptance of and performance under such contracts or orders in preference to other contracts or orders for the purpose of assuring such priority. Whenever the President is satisfied that the fulfillment of requirements for the defense of the United States will result in a shortage in the supply of any material or of any facilities for defense or for private account or for export, the President may allocate such material or facilities in such manner, upon such conditions and to such extent as he shall deem necessary or appropriate in the public interest and to promote the national defense. > "The President shall determine the amount of the fair and just compensation to be paid for any property requisitioned and taken over pursuant to this Act and the fair value of any prop- erty returned under section 2 of this Act, but each such determination shall be made as of the time it is requisitioned or returned, as the case may be, in accordance with the provision for just compensation in the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States . All direct quotes from the Second War Powers Act in 1942. https://web.archive.org/web/20151031140130/https://legisworks.org/congress/77/publaw-507.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20151031140130/https://legiswork... Further formalized post-war in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950. > There was an element of coercion, sure. But I can find no evidence of anyone coming away from their business with the U.S. poorer. It's still nationalization if you make out like a bandit in the process.
avidphantasm 2y ago
The nationalization I’m referring to is a temporary vehicle for re-organizing into worker ownership and control. I don’t mean for these to be controlled by the government directly in the long term (though I would be open to such an arrangement, but I understand it makes many Americans squeamish). As for the experience with nationalization in other countries, I am hesitant to try to draw lessons from nationalization in socialist countries. Given how much capitalist states meddle whenever a socialist state takes root, I think it’s really hard to disentangle possible perverse outcomes of nationalization (which should be discovered and mitigated against!) from the skullduggery taking place as part of attempts to thwart socialism.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > re-organizing into worker ownership and control What makes you think such a system would work better than private or state ownership? > attempts to thwart socialism. Nobody is better at that than the (so called) socialists themselves. It simply doesn’t work without coercion, restrictive capital controls and other policies which aim to minimize the competitiveness of private enterprises (if they are not banned outright). This almost leads to lack of innovation, poor productivity, extreme corruption and authoritarianism.
  - avidphantasm 2y ago
    > What makes you think such a system would work better than private or state ownership? How much longer should we stand by and let Boeing crumble? What’s next, put tariffs on Comac planes and force Americans to fly and die on sub-standard Boeing planes?
    - tekla 2y ago
      Last time I checked, Boeing is still about half of all Commercial traffic. So until that stops being a thing, Boeing will stay around.
      - stetrain 2y ago
ceejayoz 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System Worked fairly well. The last few decades have seen antitrust regulators asleep at the wheel, though, so we're back to 2-3 biggies again with all the mergers.
- lokimedes 2y ago
  The side-effect of unhinging Bell Labs from a commercial monopoly is seen from afar, like someone putting a spanner into the global wheel of progress. You may have gotten cheaper phone service in the US, but I’m still waiting for a Bell Labs level invention to come out of the free market system.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    Yeah, the break up of Bell Labs means it probably wasn’t worth breaking up AT&T all things considered.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  At&T was never nationalised. Just broken up.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    If the cops come to your house, divide up your possessions, and give them to a bunch of neighbors, you'd certainly feel briefly nationalized.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If the cops come to your house, divide up your possessions, and give them to a bunch of neighbors, you'd certainly feel briefly nationalized Sure. That’s not what happened. The cops came in and divided my pile of stuff into different piles. They’re still mine. They’re just not allowed to talk to each other. AT&T’s shareholders famously did well out the break-up [1]. [1] https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/may/25/att-rewards-steady-investors-shares-held-since/ https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/may/25/att-rewards-st...
stetrain 2y ago
There are lots of ways to consider "nationalization" but here are some examples. The US temporarily became a majority owner of GM as part of their 2009 bankruptcy. > Through the Troubled Asset Relief Program the US Treasury invested a total $51 billion into the GM bankruptcy.[93] Until December 10, 2013, the U. S. Treasury recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake. The final direct cost to the Treasury of the GM bailout was $11[94]-12 billion ($10.5 billion for General Motors and $1.5 billion for former GM financing GMAC, now known as Ally).[95] Local tax incentives amounted to $1.7 billion, most of them in Michigan.[96][97] A study by the Center for Automotive Research found that the GM bailout saved 1.2 million jobs and preserved $34.9 billion in tax revenue.[95] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor... https://jacobin.com/2019/10/general-motors-nationalization-uaw-strike https://jacobin.com/2019/10/general-motors-nationalization-u... Conrail was a consolidated nationalization of multiple failed or failing railroads. In hindsight it effectively served as a way to consolidate, restructure, and then re-privatize the operation of the railroads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrail It doesn't have to mean that the government continues to operate the company directly indefinitely.
mcfedr 2y ago
Because the USA isn't Venezuela
- sofixa 2y ago
  Of all the companies that have been nationalised all around the world, you could only think of Venezuela? Wildly successful counterexamples: Suez and Panama canals. Chantiers de l'Atlantique, EDF, Renault in France.
redserk 2y ago
The US Treasury practically owned Ally Bank (formerly GMAC) after the 2008 financial crisis with a 63% stake [1]. The government then sold off its stake around 2014 and Ally seems to be doing well now. I’d make the argument that significant ownership by the government means it’s effectively nationalized. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2014/12/31/u-s-treasury-sells-ally-financial-stake-no-more-government-motors/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2014/12/31/u-s-treasur...

stevenwoo 2y ago

Since you didn't qualify your question, the US essentially nationalized almost all industrial production for World War 2 and had no problem converting it back at the end when conditions changed.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the US essentially nationalized almost all industrial production for World War 2 Source? Defence production directives don’t change ownership.
- whycome 2y ago
  Are they directives if the manufacturers don't have a choice?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  But they do change who fundamentally has control of the company during that time.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > they do change who fundamentally has control of the company during that time No, they were contracts authorised by the War Powers Act of 1941 [1][2]. Management was conserved and largely left to its own decisions. When workers struck, mines and factories were nationalised [3], but that was the exception. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1941 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1941 [2] https://www.dcma.mil/News/Article-View/Article/2100501/a-history-of-defense-contract-administration/ https://www.dcma.mil/News/Article-View/Article/2100501/a-his... [3] https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/A_History_of_Nationalization_in_the_US-Hanna-NSP.pdf https://thenextsystem.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/A_Hist...
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > No, they were contracts authorised by the War Powers Act of 1941. That they were legally required to accept. "Boeing, you have to make X B-17s for Y dollars" is a nationalization just as much as "Boeing, we're going to use your stuff to make X B-17s".
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > That they were legally required to accept Again, source? Because to my knowledge, this wasn’t true. The requirements for public tender were lifted, which just meant contracts could be sole sourced. Those contracts were negotiated and paid for [1]. There was an element of coercion, sure. But I can find no evidence of anyone coming away from their business with the U.S. poorer. [1] https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2013/03/wwii-detail-from-war-supply-contracts/ https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2013/03/wwii-detail-from-...
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or any other officer, board, commission, or governmental corporation author- ized by the President, may acquire by purchase, donation, or other means of transfer, or may cause proceedings to be instituted in any court having jurisdiction of such proceedings, to acquire by con- demnation, any real property, temporary use thereof, or other interest therein, together with any personal property located thereon or used therewith, that shall be deemed necessary, for military, naval, or other war purposes, such proceedings to be in accordance with the Act of August 1, 1888 (25 Stat . 357), or any other applicable Federal statute, and may dispose of such property or interest therein by sale, lease, or otherwise, in accordance with section 1 (b) of the Act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat . 712) > Deliveries of material under all orders placed pursuant to the authority of this paragraph and all other naval contracts or orders and deliveries of material under all Army contracts or orders shall, in the discretion of the President, take priority over all deliveries for private account or for export. > Deliveries under any contract or order specified in this subsection (a) may be assigned priority over deliveries under any other contract or order ; and the President may require acceptance of and performance under such contracts or orders in preference to other contracts or orders for the purpose of assuring such priority. Whenever the President is satisfied that the fulfillment of requirements for the defense of the United States will result in a shortage in the supply of any material or of any facilities for defense or for private account or for export, the President may allocate such material or facilities in such manner, upon such conditions and to such extent as he shall deem necessary or appropriate in the public interest and to promote the national defense. > "The President shall determine the amount of the fair and just compensation to be paid for any property requisitioned and taken over pursuant to this Act and the fair value of any prop- erty returned under section 2 of this Act, but each such determination shall be made as of the time it is requisitioned or returned, as the case may be, in accordance with the provision for just compensation in the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States . All direct quotes from the Second War Powers Act in 1942. https://web.archive.org/web/20151031140130/https://legisworks.org/congress/77/publaw-507.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20151031140130/https://legiswork... Further formalized post-war in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950. > There was an element of coercion, sure. But I can find no evidence of anyone coming away from their business with the U.S. poorer. It's still nationalization if you make out like a bandit in the process.

avidphantasm 2y ago

The nationalization I’m referring to is a temporary vehicle for re-organizing into worker ownership and control. I don’t mean for these to be controlled by the government directly in the long term (though I would be open to such an arrangement, but I understand it makes many Americans squeamish). As for the experience with nationalization in other countries, I am hesitant to try to draw lessons from nationalization in socialist countries. Given how much capitalist states meddle whenever a socialist state takes root, I think it’s really hard to disentangle possible perverse outcomes of nationalization (which should be discovered and mitigated against!) from the skullduggery taking place as part of attempts to thwart socialism.

ffgjgf1 2y ago
> re-organizing into worker ownership and control What makes you think such a system would work better than private or state ownership? > attempts to thwart socialism. Nobody is better at that than the (so called) socialists themselves. It simply doesn’t work without coercion, restrictive capital controls and other policies which aim to minimize the competitiveness of private enterprises (if they are not banned outright). This almost leads to lack of innovation, poor productivity, extreme corruption and authoritarianism.
- avidphantasm 2y ago
  > What makes you think such a system would work better than private or state ownership? How much longer should we stand by and let Boeing crumble? What’s next, put tariffs on Comac planes and force Americans to fly and die on sub-standard Boeing planes?
  - tekla 2y ago
    Last time I checked, Boeing is still about half of all Commercial traffic. So until that stops being a thing, Boeing will stay around.
    - stetrain 2y ago

ceejayoz 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System Worked fairly well. The last few decades have seen antitrust regulators asleep at the wheel, though, so we're back to 2-3 biggies again with all the mergers.

lokimedes 2y ago
The side-effect of unhinging Bell Labs from a commercial monopoly is seen from afar, like someone putting a spanner into the global wheel of progress. You may have gotten cheaper phone service in the US, but I’m still waiting for a Bell Labs level invention to come out of the free market system.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  Yeah, the break up of Bell Labs means it probably wasn’t worth breaking up AT&T all things considered.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
At&T was never nationalised. Just broken up.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  If the cops come to your house, divide up your possessions, and give them to a bunch of neighbors, you'd certainly feel briefly nationalized.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If the cops come to your house, divide up your possessions, and give them to a bunch of neighbors, you'd certainly feel briefly nationalized Sure. That’s not what happened. The cops came in and divided my pile of stuff into different piles. They’re still mine. They’re just not allowed to talk to each other. AT&T’s shareholders famously did well out the break-up [1]. [1] https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/may/25/att-rewards-steady-investors-shares-held-since/ https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/may/25/att-rewards-st...

stetrain 2y ago

There are lots of ways to consider "nationalization" but here are some examples. The US temporarily became a majority owner of GM as part of their 2009 bankruptcy. > Through the Troubled Asset Relief Program the US Treasury invested a total $51 billion into the GM bankruptcy.[93] Until December 10, 2013, the U. S. Treasury recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake. The final direct cost to the Treasury of the GM bailout was $11[94]-12 billion ($10.5 billion for General Motors and $1.5 billion for former GM financing GMAC, now known as Ally).[95] Local tax incentives amounted to $1.7 billion, most of them in Michigan.[96][97] A study by the Center for Automotive Research found that the GM bailout saved 1.2 million jobs and preserved $34.9 billion in tax revenue.[95] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor... https://jacobin.com/2019/10/general-motors-nationalization-uaw-strike https://jacobin.com/2019/10/general-motors-nationalization-u... Conrail was a consolidated nationalization of multiple failed or failing railroads. In hindsight it effectively served as a way to consolidate, restructure, and then re-privatize the operation of the railroads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrail It doesn't have to mean that the government continues to operate the company directly indefinitely.

mcfedr 2y ago

Because the USA isn't Venezuela

sofixa 2y ago
Of all the companies that have been nationalised all around the world, you could only think of Venezuela? Wildly successful counterexamples: Suez and Panama canals. Chantiers de l'Atlantique, EDF, Renault in France.

redserk 2y ago

The US Treasury practically owned Ally Bank (formerly GMAC) after the 2008 financial crisis with a 63% stake [1]. The government then sold off its stake around 2014 and Ally seems to be doing well now. I’d make the argument that significant ownership by the government means it’s effectively nationalized. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2014/12/31/u-s-treasury-sells-ally-financial-stake-no-more-government-motors/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2014/12/31/u-s-treasur...