Talk:Nationalization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV removals[edit]

François Mitterrand's Parti Socialiste was social democratic; social democracy is quite far removed from the popular view of "socialism". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But by their name they don't claim to be social democratic, but rather socialist, n'est-ce pas? Rlquall 12:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The two links point to the same article. I removed the redundant link. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

I am very aware of the general Wikipedia policy to use American spellings for American topics and British spellings for UK/Commonwealth topics. But obviously this topic is neither specifically one or the other and changing spellings within the article looks ridiculous. Changing them all to the American-preferred ones is not an instance of American imperialism but rather making the article seem comparable to other encyclop(a)edia articles. Rlquall 12:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is understandable, but changing them all to Commonwealth Spellings would be just the same.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

'ise'-'ize' is not a regional english variant issue apart from the fact that some places don't use 'ise' at all. 'ize' has always been acceptable in all english speaking countries.Zebulin (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's right. Although 'ize' is used more often in the USA it is not an Americanism. Established British newspapers like The Times favour the use of the 'ize' suffix. But I agree that using both forms in one article can be a little strange. I'm British but generally prefer to use American spelling (as it's more universal, keeps Microsoft Word happy and is often simpler) and the 'ize' suffix.--217.201.19.40 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
When spelling words such as Nationalization using a British Spellchecker it comes up as an incorrect spelling. The use of 'ize' instead of the British 'ise' is clearly not a British spelling. The Times does not define the spellings within the English language, however the BBC as a nationalised news broadcaster, internationally uses the British English spellings. The spelling should be used in relation to its subheading, for instance the United Kingdom section should use the British Spelling. Also considering the original ideology and spelling of Nationalisation is spelt with an 's' not a 'z', should clearly indicate that this is the original and correct spelling and should be used as the main spelling, only not to be used in the case of when the article talks specifically about America or another nation that uses a different spelling. Lastly 'ize' is not acceptable in all English speaking countries as it is not acceptable within the United Kingdom.

Arguments For and Against[edit]

Privatization has a section of Arguments For and Against so its only natural that this article should too.

I second that notion. Otherwise the site will appear biased.

I support this notion.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at public ownership. G-Man ? 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Socialization vs. Nationalization[edit]

The article on Socialization is disambiguating to this article: "[..]socialization can refer to nationalization in political science". This is not entirely true. Some people may think that they are synonyms, but many others do not. Please see Talk:Socialization. It should be fixed in some way. Kricke 02:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad info on Venezuela[edit]

Hugo Chávez could have hardly tried to nationalize the oil industry in Venezuela, mainly because it had already been nationalized in the late 70´s, that entry in the "CIA and nationalization" section should be removed. In addition, the 2002 coup d'état was not about nationalizing the oil industry, but about the "revolutionary" laws that were being enacted (Land distribution, Fishing, etc).

tag your comments. Anyway, he's in the process of renationalizing the oil and energy sector within Venezuela. Considering the multinational interests in the region, and the sheer amount of oil produced in that country, I think that's noteworthy. The newsies certainly believe it's newsworthy. /// 3R1C 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's impossible to "renationalize" what hasn't been privatized. In Venezuela the State has had the monopoly of the oil industry since the late 70's. What the government wants to do now is nationalize CANTV, the main phone companay of the country wich was indeed privatized in the early 90's. But the energy sector only has private investment in power plants and the electricity network, that had been a state monopoly, but later opened to other players, without privatizing the State-owned CADAFE.

US: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac[edit]

I'm no expert, but I was always under the impression that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sally Mae (sp?) were originally nationalised and still are under some sort of government guarantee. Maybe a more learned person could add these if I'm right?BaseTurnComplete 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I removed these. They were placed under a conservatorship, which is akin to bankruptcy. Conservatorship typically is for not yet insolvent entities. Fannie Mae was originally a government agency, then made private in the late 1960s. Freddie Mac always an independent corporation. Both, as publicly traded corporations are government sponsored entities. See Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for details. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk: please add nationalization of canadas cental bank[edit]

i cant add it on because i am not in the know so would somebody add the nationalization of canada's central bank by william lyon mackenzie king former prime minister (1938)


thanks, mister befuddled —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellaim (talkcontribs) 11:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglo- Indonesia[edit]

The British company Anglo-Indonesia was nationalised by the Indonesian government in the (60's?) as part of a government take-over of foreign companies in Indonesia. Don't know any more than that.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Egypt[edit]

Please ADD

In the early 1960s the government nationalized much of the industrial, financial, and commercial sectors of the economy.

(Anthony Kamel (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

Russia 1998[edit]

It is a very long run-on sentence that I can't understand. Can it be straightened out? 209.181.58.51 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempted to clean it up a bit. 68.79.115.106 (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


2.1 Australia[edit]

Qantas wasn't nationalised. In 1947 the government, a minor shareholder already, bought out the others at an agreed price. Grassynoel (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Socialism?[edit]

Is the socialism side bar necesary? The New Labour government (who dropped clause 4 in 1994, thus sort of renouncing socialism) have nationalised British Energy, Northern Rock and part of Bradford & Bingley. Even the ultra right wing US government are nationalising financial institutions left, right and centre.

Also note, the spelling of Nationalisation is with an 'S'. I have even checked a concise Oxford English Dictionary and can find no mention of any alternative spelling.Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Socialism and Nationalization are not interchangeable terms, and as such, the sidebar is misleading, and does not represent a neutral POV. It ought to be up for consideration as to whether Nationalization belongs in the 'Related Topics' section of the sidebar. Considering the other topics in that section, putting Nationalization there seems a little out of place. Note that the sidebar is not placed in the pages of the other related topics. On an semi-related note, the inclusion of Left-wing politics in that section also does not represent a neutral POV.--Kronak (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Re the spelling: words such as nationalise, organise, realise etc are generally spelt with a Z in the US and with an S in the UK. Collins Concise Dictionary says both are acceptable but lists the Z spelling first in each case. MFlet1 (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Companies nationalized in 2008[edit]

The other day I added, AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, Chrysler, and General Motors after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under U.S. 2008 nationalizations. This was removed for being unsourced and not fitting the definition.

The sources for those companies' bailouts are all incredibly easy to find - and I also note that there are no sources currently listed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being nationalized, and yet they remain in the article. I think we need to come to some definition of what constitutes nationalization for the purposes of the article. In particular, I think AIG can clearly be described as having been nationalized, with the banks having been semi-nationalized. I will admit that it's a little harder to make the case for the auto companies, for the time being. In all cases, however, the government has purchased STOCK of the above-mentioned companies, thereby retaining an ownership interest. 129.61.46.60 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the distinction between bailouts and nationalizations should be made clearer. (I think It's about ownership in the decision-making control sense in addition to financial infusions.)
After a quick look I actually can't find solid reliable sources that describe FM&FM as having been outright nationalized, and the issue is touched on in Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so I'll add a remark and citation for now.
EqualRights (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
AIG seems like an obvious example - 80% government stock ownership and de facto control, what with forcing them to take certain actions. I'll add it back into the article. 129.61.46.60 (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There are two things wrong with the edit: the citation is a dead link, and Greenberg is not an economist.
Hi, here's a NYTimes blog entry where AIG is referred to as more than a bailout. I'm inclined to agree that AIG has been essentially nationalized, but we need to find a reliable source for that opinion. —EqualRights (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think that the 2008-2??? nationalizations should be separated out from the previous ones? The circumstances and reasons are different from most previous nationalizations, the phenomenon was world-wide and permanent government ownership is not an objective. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Nationalization" of airport security doesn't fit[edit]

The US government taking control of airport security doesn't seem like nationalization. It is more like that they just kicked the companies performing security operations out of the airports. They didn't really take any ownership in those companies. --Melab±1 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mispelt the title - Nationalisation[edit]

Nationalisation is simply the British spelling. Oddly enough, "mispelt" (sic) is a misspelling! 203.13.3.92 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

London Transport[edit]

The list for the United Kingdom has "1933 London Transport"; I believe that whilst London Transport was formed in 1933 (London Passenger Transport Act 1933), it was not nationalised until 1948; if it had already been state owned, it would not have been mentioned in either the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 as an organisation to be placed under Government control. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Singapore[edit]

Can anybody help? I heard that at one point a cartel of landlords bumped up rents in Singapore until the government stepped in and nationalised their flats. Out-of-character for a country where a large portion of the economy was privately owned. Anybody got info on this? Zagubov (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

missing nationalizations - communist states in 20th century[edit]

Some of the Cold War soviet satellites and aligned states are missing. File:Sino-Soviet split 1980.svg. Espicially the european ones. Alinor (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Union, no private ownership was allowed[edit]

This statement does not look true to me. As far as I know from the history of this country, one was not allowed to own "means of production", but, surely, there was private ownership for food, clothes, houses, apartments (cooperative apartments) and any other kinds of personal things, as well as money. The state, on the other hand, owned plants, factories, hospitals, educational institutions, etc. 178.176.48.255 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Soviets distinguished between "private property" (i.e. the means of production) and "personal property". Also, personal property was limited to some extent - for instance, land was never technically bought or sold, at most the state would issue leases for a piece of property.108.3.147.98 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

TELEFONICA[edit]

Spanish telecommunication company Telefonica was nationalized from American ITT in 1945. This is reference--http://www.fundacion.telefonica.com/es/arteytecnologia/museo/nave/nave/sup/20/hechos/43.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.192.163 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Expropriation is Inappropriate from US Perspective[edit]

Emminent Domain is the American form of expropriation. The suggestion that expropriation involves nationalization without compensation would appear to be inaccurate. If this article is within the scope of socialism, as stated, then expropriation is not appropriately discussed, as capitalism can lead to rationales for expropriation as well. At the outside, one might wonder if nationalization is more term of substance or rhetorical polemic. Emminent Domain article lists other countries providing for similar legal actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.28.63 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are you from? You are obviously ignorant of the US constitution and Bill of Rights, Amendment 5 of which states "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Thus, eminent domain, for which just compensation is given, is not "the American form of expropriation." The eminent domain article conflates at least three or four different international concepts, and should be split out, not merged. And your snarky reference to capitalism is out of line; such decisions are made by government bodies (after public due process), not by business interests. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)