You see, another reason for nationalization was that private ownership meant fragmentation.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The less government interferes with private pursuits, the better for general prosperity.
I think private ownership is generally superior to public because you care about the land more and it doesn't get trashed.
Western concepts of ownership and privatization came in and clashed with that. So land began to be exchanged.
Privatization came on slowly. When something very big happens, like privatization, historians and economists like to think you must have had very big causes. That is not how it happened.
The public lands are a public stock, which ought to be disposed of to the best advantage for the nation.
Nationalization would likely mean wiping out the big banks' managements and shareholders. It's because that reckoning has mostly been avoided so far that those bankers may be the Americans in the greatest denial of all.
Proponents of privatization argued that cities and states needed private capital to fund all the upgrades that our decaying infrastructure so desperately needed.
In the age of globalisation, pooled sovereignty means more power, not less.
Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark.
In various countries around the world, assets that had previously been in the hands of governments were sold off to the private sector in the hope that this would lead to a more efficient allocation, that these assets would be put to better use.