Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j8j8swk wrote

By 2012, Venezuela had nationalized the oil, gas, electricity, telecommunications, food, agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and finance sectors of the economy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSBRE89701X20121008

Norway's Equinor is 33% owned by Hedge funds, like Black Rock. https://www.equinor.com/investors/our-shareholders

And Bolivia was able to Build a skyscraper for the President to live in with all that money from nationalizing the gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Grande_del_Pueblo#/media/File:Plaza_Murillo_.jpg

The largest tin producer in Malaysia is Malaysia Smelting Company, which has never been nationalized, and is owned by private investors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straits_Trading_Company

2

FlibbleA t1_j8lpotp wrote

>Norway's Equinor is 33% owned by Hedge funds, like Black Rock.

Why would this be relevant? Does 67% not give you overall control? Also how are Black Rock and other Hedge funds returns benefiting many people and not just the hedge fund?

1

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j8lwphs wrote

Yes, anything over 51% gives the government of Norway control. But they still must pay dividends to the Hedge funds that own the other 33%.

And no, those dividends paid to hedge funds do not benefit the people of Norway at all, and that was my point.

Do you think it strange that private investors and hedge funds can invest in Norway's "socialist" oil company?

1

FlibbleA t1_j8lytzk wrote

Right but the problem is that guy is responding to someone saying state business is bad because it doesn't benefit many people unlike private while you are describing how the privatised part of Norway's state oil doesn't benefit the people of Norway unlike the state. That would mean before 2001 and the partial privatisation that it all benefited the people.

1