Privitisation/Nationalisation In general terms, nationalization is the act of taking property previously owned by individuals or other legal entities such

as companies or municipalities into the ownership of the state. Conversely privatization is the act of transferring property previously owned by the state into the ownership of individuals or other legal entities. In the case of a transfer to a municipality this is sometimes referred to as municipalisation. The concept of property and its ownership can thus be seen as being at the core of both nationalisation and privatisation. Whilst most people probably regard the concept of property as basic and privatisation and nationalisation as being fundamentally opposed, those who do not accept the validity of the concept of property itself, such as some socialists and anarchists, disagree. They see little if any difference between claims of government or private ownership. Monopolisation and nationalisation are closely linked. Monopolisation, in a sense, is a form of nationalisation. This is so regardless of whether the state conducts the resulting monopoly or permits private individuals to conduct it. Rights are a form of property. What has been nationalised or taken away in such case is the former right of others to conduct a competing enterprise within the sphere of what has been monopolised. Reasons of Nationalization: Reduce Inequality; Major wealth producing assets, such as the ownership of vast landholdings, mineral deposits or water rights are capable of creating great inequalities of wealth. This is particularly so if the asset can be seen as a natural monopoly. Nationalisation enables this wealth to be earned and distributed for the good of all. Stability and Security; Industries and services considered essential such as utilities, hospitals etc should be exempt from commercial vagaries and their continued ongoing existence and operation ensured. Since governments do not have to make a profit they are less likely to go out of business at short notice. Economic Size & Efficiency; By combining small private enterprises into a large, possibly monopolistic organisation, economies of scale can be achieved and a more competitive organisation created. Eg the recurring suggestion that the international sale and marketing function of Australian mineral and other primary producers should be conducted by a single governmental organisation to prevent local producers being played off against each other by overseas buyers.

 Government Power & Control; Nationalisation or the threat thereof prevents non-government organisations becoming large or powerful enough to dominate or threaten governments. Control of certain key industries such as post and communications, policing, defence and the media can be crucial in ensuring governments are unchallenged or remain in power. Eg Nationalisation of early postal services enabled governments to monitor and censor communications. Commanding the Heights of the Economy; Post WW2 the influence of Keynesian economists fostered the idea that the major or dominant industries of an economy should be in the hands of the government the better to enable it to direct, manage and control the macroeconomy. Reasons for Privitisation: Create or Increase Competition; Competition is the driving force of innovation and efficiency. Government ownership of an industry inhibits or precludes competition. This is particularly so if the government owned industry enjoys a monopoly but occurs even where competition is permitted. This is because the government owned industry does not have to make a profit to stay in business and even if nominally in competition with private competitors enjoys various advantages which the private competitor cannot match, such as access to cheaper finance. Eg Whilst the ABC dominates serious radio it is difficult if not impossible for alternative sources to compete since the ABC is in effect giving away what private competitors would have to charge for. Less Political Opprobrium; over time the popular expectations of nationalised industries become unrealistic with people expecting more and more for less and less. Shortfalls in income can require increased taxes to pay for them. Poor performance and price increases cause political opprobrium which can be more easily deflected onto new private owners. Politically it is easier to make reductions in staff numbers if such reductions are effected by private employers.

Globalisation According to Thomas Friedman Globalization is the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before - in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is enabling the world to reach to individuals,

corporations and nation-states farther, faster, deeper, cheaper than ever before. It began decades ago, but accelerated dramatically over the past 10 years, as the price of computing power fell and the world became an ever-more densely interconnected place. It is modern communications that make it possible; for the British service sector to deal with its customers through a call center in India, or for a sportswear manufacturer to design its products in Europe, make them in south-east Asia and sell them in North America. Globalization has pulled millions of people out of poverty in India and China, and multiplied the size of the global middle class. It has raised the global standard of living faster than that at any other time in the history of the world, and it is supporting astounding growth. These are good sides of globalization. But the process of globalisation can also be seen as a surrender of power to the corporations, or a means of keeping poorer nations in their place. Globalisation can be seen as a positive, negative or even marginal process. And regardless of whether it works for good or ill, globalisation's exact meaning will continue to be the subject of debate among those who oppose, support or simply observe it.

The disadvantages of globalization

1. The general complaint about globalization is that it has made the rich richer while making the non-rich poorer. It is wonderful for managers and investors, but hell on workers and nature.1

2. Multinational corporations are accused of social injustice, unfair working conditions (including slave labor wages and poor living and working conditions), as well as a lack of concern for the environment, mismanagement of natural resources, and ecological damage.

3. Multinational corporations which were previously restricted to commercial activities are increasingly influencing political decisions. Many think there is a threat of corporations ruling the world because they are gaining power due to globalization.

4. Opponents say globalization makes it easier for rich companies to act with less accountability. They also claim that countries individual cultures are becoming overpowered by Americanization.

5. Anti-globalists also claim that globalization is not working for the majority of the world. During the most recent period of rapid growth in global trade and investment, 1960 to 1998, inequality worsened both internationally and within countries. The UN Development Program reports that the richest 20 percent of the world's population consume 86 percent of the world's resources, while the poorest 80 percent consume just 14 percent.

6. Some experts think that globalization is also leading to the incursion of communicable diseases. Deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS are being spread by travelers to the remotest corners of the globe.

7. Globalization has led to exploitation of labor. Prisoners and child workers are used to work in inhumane conditions. Safety standards are ignored to produce cheap goods. There is also an increase in human trafficking.

8. Social welfare schemes or safety nets are under great pressure in developed countries because of deficits and other economic ramifications of globalization.

The positive side of globalization

Globalization has a positive side as well. Supporters of globalization argue that it has the potential to make this world a better place to live in and solve some deep-seated problems like unemployment and poverty. The marginal are getting a chance to exhibit in the world market.

1. The proponents of global free trade say that it promotes global economic growth, creates jobs, makes companies more competitive, and lowers prices for consumers. It also provides poor countries, through infusions of foreign capital and technology, with the chance to develop economically and by spreading prosperity creates the conditions in which democracy and respect for human rights may flourish.

2. According to libertarians, globalization will help us to raise the global economy only when the involved power blocks have mutual trust and respect for each others opinion. Globalization and democracy should go hand-in-hand. It should be pure business with no colonialist designs.

3. Now there is a worldwide market for companies and consumers to access products from different countries.

4. There is a world power that is being created gradually, instead of compartmentalized power sectors. Politics are merging and decisions that are being made are actually beneficial for people all over the world.

5 There is more influx of information between two countries.

6. There is cultural intermingling. Each country is learning more about other cultures.

7. Since we share financial interests, corporations and governments are trying to sort out ecological problems for each other.

8. Socially we have become more open and tolerant towards each other, and people who live in the other part of the world are not considered aliens.

9. Most people see speedy travel, mass communications and quick dissemination of information through the Internet as benefits of globalization.

Trade protectionism
Trade protection is the deliberate attempt to limit imports or promote exports by putting up barriers to trade. Despite the arguments in favour of free trade and increasing trade openness, protectionism is still widely practiced. The motives for protection The main arguments for protection are: Protect sunrise industries Barriers to trade can be used to protect sunrise industries, also known as infant industries, such as those involving new technologies. This gives new firms the chance to develop, grow, and become globally competitive. Protection of domestic industries may allow them to develop a comparative advantage. For example, domestic firms may expand when protected from competition and benefit from economies of scale. As firms grow they may invest in real and human capital and develop new capabilities and skills. Once these skills and capabilities are developed there is less need for trade protection, and barriers may be eventually removed. Protect sunset industries At the other end of scale are sunset industries, also known as declining industries, which might need some support to enable them to decline slowly, and avoid some of the negative effects of such decline. For the UK, each generation throws up its own declining industries, such as ship building in the 1950s, car production in the 1970s, and steel production in the 1990s. Protect strategic industries Barriers may also be erected to protect strategic industries, such as energy, water, steel, armaments, and food. The implicit aim of the EUs

Common Agricultural Policy is to create food security for Europe by protecting its agricultural sector. Protect non-renewable resources Non-renewable resources, including oil, are regarded as a special case where the normal rules of free trade are often abandoned. For countries aiming to rely on oil exports lasting into the long term, such as the oil-rich Middle Eastern economies, limiting output in the short term through production quotas is one method employed to conserve resources. Deter unfair competition Barriers may be erected to deter unfair competition, such as dumping by foreign firms at prices below cost. Save jobs Protecting an industry may, in the short run, protect jobs, though in the long run it is unlikely that jobs can be protected indefinitely. Help the environment Some countries may protect themselves from trade to help limit damage to their environment, such as that arising from CO2 emissions caused by increased production and transportation. Limit over-specialisation Many economists point to the dangers of over-specialisation, which might occur as a result of taking the theory of comparative advantage to its extreme. Retaining some self-sufficiency is seen as a sensible economic strategy given the risks of global downturns, and an over-reliance on international trade. In addition to the economic arguments for protection, some protection may be for political reasons. Methods of protection There are two types of protection; tariffs, which are taxes, or duties, on imported goods designed to raise the price to the level of, or above the existing domestic price, and non-tariff barriers, which include all other barriers, such as: