Fetterman

[headhunter15]

I think there needs to be some protections for national security reasons. Not exactly sure what that would entail but

This…potential conflicts with China and perhaps Russia are down the road. Some on here are forgetting what tanks, jets, and battleships will need to be built with.

 

[McDad]

For those of you who think national manufacturing interests supersede a business owners ability to make a decision about what is best for their business, does it make a difference if the business is being sold to others from a friendly country? In other words, is it the same if someone from Canada and someone from Russia wants to buy US Steel?

 

[hog88]

For those of you who think national manufacturing interests supersede a business owners ability to make a decision about what is best for their business, does it make a difference if the business is being sold to others from a friendly country? In other words, is it the same if someone from Canada and someone from Russia wants to buy US Steel?

It's a difficult topic that's for sure. What would you think about a Chinese or even (lets say) a German company purchased Duke power or Exelon?

 

[McDad]

It's a difficult topic that's for sure. What would you think about a Chinese or even (lets say) a German company purchased Duke power or Exelon?

Is it fair to say a gradient exists in my mind but I don't have it quantified?

There are nationals from countries where I wouldn't have any concerns whatsoever, even if they wanted to buy something scary like a nuclear power plant; England, Canada, France, Nigeria, South Korea, Japan as examples. On the other end of the spectrum there are nationals from countries that I believe concern is warranted; China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.
The business owners and directors should have autonomy to do what they please with their business, though. Perhaps the balance point is this, businesses can be sold to anyone from any country but the purchasers have to be vetted AND the US government can force the sale from the new owners if those new owners pose a credible risk to national security.

 

[hog88]

Is it fair to say a gradient exists in my mind but I don't have it quantified?

There are nationals from countries where I wouldn't have any concerns whatsoever, even if they wanted to buy something scary like a nuclear power plant; England, Canada, France, Nigeria, South Korea, Japan as examples. On the other end of the spectrum there are nationals from countries that I believe concern is warranted; China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.
The business owners and directors should have autonomy to do what they please with their business, though. Perhaps the balance point is this, businesses can be sold to anyone from any country but the purchasers have to be vetted AND the US government can force the sale from the new owners if those new owners pose a credible risk to national security.

Yep, that is fair.

 

[DC_Vol]

I wouldn’t have a problem with making it illegal for a foreign company to control any natural resource that is drawn from US soil. Things like steel, coal, uranium, precious metals, and beer for example.

 

[McDad]

I wouldn’t have a problem with making it illegal for a foreign company to control any natural resource that is drawn from US soil. Things like steel, coal, uranium, precious metals, and beer for example.

How would you feel if an American company extracted the natural resource and then sold it to a foreign company?

 

[DC_Vol]

How would you feel if an American company extracted the natural resource and then sold it to a foreign company?

No problem with it.

 

[McDad]

No problem with it.

That's interesting. Your concern is with who controls extraction. Can you explain?

 

[DC_Vol]

That's interesting. Your concern is with who controls extraction. Can you explain?

It’s very simple. If I were a foreign government and wanted to destroy the US, I might decide to buy up as much of the coal production in the US and stop producing it. Or send it all to their country.

It’s the same reasoning why only an American can be president. it’s not seen as a problem if the president has interactions or transactions with foreign leaders, but we insist their qualifications make it most likely they are loyal to the US first.

 

[Wireless1]

I wouldn’t have a problem with making it illegal for a foreign company to control any natural resource that is drawn from US soil. Things like steel, coal, uranium, precious metals, and beer for example.

Yes, all critical resourses.

 

[McDad]

It’s very simple. If I were a foreign government and wanted to destroy the US, I might decide to buy up as much of the coal production in the US and stop producing it. Or send it all to their country.

It’s the same reasoning why only an American can be president. it’s not seen as a problem if the president has interactions or transactions with foreign leaders, but we insist their qualifications make it most likely they are loyal to the US first.

Thanks. I understand your thought process. I don't agree completely...I think the premise is a bit far fetched. Also, if an American citizen could sell all the resources to the other country the same premise would hold.

Just had a thought...would existing American anti monopoly laws prevent anyone (foreign or domestic) from controlling all of a particular resource?

 

[Gandalf]

Is it fair to say a gradient exists in my mind but I don't have it quantified?

There are nationals from countries where I wouldn't have any concerns whatsoever, even if they wanted to buy something scary like a nuclear power plant; England, Canada, France, Nigeria, South Korea, Japan as examples. On the other end of the spectrum there are nationals from countries that I believe concern is warranted; China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc.
The business owners and directors should have autonomy to do what they please with their business, though. Perhaps the balance point is this, businesses can be sold to anyone from any country but the purchasers have to be vetted AND the US government can force the sale from the new owners if those new owners pose a credible risk to national security.

While I hear you on friendly vs unfriendly nations, the fact is that today's friend may not always be so. Even when they are, they may have a very different set of legal and cultural standards. As such, industrial production and land/resources that are deemed strategic should not ever be controlled by an external force outside of the jurisdiction of the US Government. Theoretically, that means the US voters will have their say in it, though we know that is not so in practice but still, there is the possibility of it.

We make these distinctions in treaty orgs all the time. I do not want our sovereignty sublimated by any organization which is not responsible and accountable to US citizens. That said, with treaty orgs, we sublimate our laws for theirs BUT we could withdraw from the treaty AND at least in many cases, it was made by agreement of the people's elected representatives. A thin fig leaf to be sure, but still important IMO.

 

[DC_Vol]

Thanks. I understand your thought process. I don't agree completely...I think the premise is a bit far fetched. Also, if an American citizen could sell all the resources to the other country the same premise would hold.

Just had a thought...would existing American anti monopoly laws prevent anyone (foreign or domestic) from controlling all of a particular resource?

If by far fetched you mean highly improbable, then I agree. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t guard against it.

To address your point on an American citizen selling all the resources to another country: sure that could happen, too. But just because one approach doesn’t make it impossible doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do.

Regrading anti monopoly laws, i suppose it might if they were all being consolidated under one company. Just a thought, one could cripple our economy by taking one or two gas pipelines out of service. You don’t need it all.

 

[McDad]

While I hear you on friendly vs unfriendly nations, the fact is that today's friend may not always be so. Even when they are, they may have a very different set of legal and cultural standards. As such, industrial production and land/resources that are deemed strategic should not ever be controlled by an external force outside of the jurisdiction of the US Government. Theoretically, that means the US voters will have their say in it, though we know that is not so in practice but still, there is the possibility of it.

We make these distinctions in treaty orgs all the time. I do not want our sovereignty sublimated by any organization which is not responsible and accountable to US citizens. That said, with treaty orgs, we sublimate our laws for theirs BUT we could withdraw from the treaty AND at least in many cases, it was made by agreement of the people's elected representatives. A thin fig leaf to be sure, but still important IMO.

You're expressing your thoughts very well. I understand your perspective.

Thanks for the discussion, too.

If a strategic resource was controlled by a US citizen and that citizen wanted to destroy America by crippling the resource (availability, distribution, etc) would that be under the jurisdiction of the US Government?

Could we not simply use imminent domain if a foreign interest was found to be plotting nefariously?

 

[McDad]

If by far fetched you mean highly improbable, then I agree. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t guard against it.

To address your point on an American citizen selling all the resources to another country: sure that could happen, too. But just because one approach doesn’t make it impossible doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do.

Regrading anti monopoly laws, i suppose it might if they were all being consolidated under one company. Just a thought, one could cripple our economy by taking one or two gas pipelines out of service. You don’t need it all.

Agreed on disrupting our economy with damaging pipelines. And since that avenue is so simple and quick, why would a foreign interest go through the hassle of purchasing a US business and play the long game?

 

[DC_Vol]

Agreed on disrupting our economy with damaging pipelines. And since that avenue is so simple and quick, why would a foreign interest go through the hassle of purchasing a US business and play the long game?

I believe a Canadian company does own 1 or more in the US already.

 

[Gandalf]

You're expressing your thoughts very well. I understand your perspective.

Thanks for the discussion, too.

If a strategic resource was controlled by a US citizen and that citizen wanted to destroy America by crippling the resource (availability, distribution, etc) would that be under the jurisdiction of the US Government?

Could we not simply use imminent domain if a foreign interest was found to be plotting nefariously?

At least theoretically. Then again, we have have an entire foreign service who used to operate with near impunity beyond the "chinese wall" of our borders. Sometimes their meddling was beneficial, sometimes not. In theory, however, our intelligence services are under the rubric of our executive branch and thus an elected official that we the people can fire.

The political peril of using eminent domain on an individual basis is that it gives rise to too much variability decided by the immanently corruptible.

The devil, I warrant you, is in the details, especially when government, by its nature, screws up almost anything it touches. Where exactly, to draw the line in writ form? Its a bit like the old definition of pornography vs art, I know it when I see it - but proper codification is necessary.

Meanwhile, an easy legislative act is the prohibition of any foreign owned person or corp owning over a certain amount (acreage). Less concerned about corporate HQs in big cities and more so, vast tracts of farmland. or for that matter, very large units of rental properties (written not to disturb the MBS market)

 

[McDad]

I believe a Canadian company does own 1 or more in the US already.

1 or more pipelines???

I think you're correct. In fact, I think those are originating in Canada and piping a canadian resourde to the gulf coast for refining.

So there's another wrinkle, would American government be justified in blocking the sale of a Canadian pipeline on American soil to a Russian national?

 

[McDad]

At least theoretically. Then again, we have have an entire foreign service who used to operate with near impunity beyond the "chinese wall" of our borders. Sometimes their meddling was beneficial, sometimes not. In theory, however, our intelligence services are under the rubric of our executive branch and thus an elected official that we the people can fire.

The political peril of using eminent domain on an individual basis is that it gives rise to too much variability decided by the immanently corruptible.

The devil, I warrant you, is in the details, especially when government, by its nature, screws up almost anything it touches. Where exactly, to draw the line in writ form? Its a bit like the old definition of pornography vs art, I know it when I see it - but proper codification is necessary.

Meanwhile, an easy legislative act is the prohibition of any foreign owned person or corp owning over a certain amount (acreage). Less concerned about corporate HQs in big cities and more so, vast tracts of farmland. or for that matter, very large units of rental properties (written not to disturb the MBS market)

What is a "foreign owned" (used in your last paragraph) person?

 

[Orangeburst]

Inbev bought AB, and we ended up with LGBT. Really messed the beer market up.

 

[DC_Vol]

1 or more pipelines???

I think you're correct. In fact, I think those are originating in Canada and piping a canadian resourde to the gulf coast for refining.

So there's another wrinkle, would American government be justified in blocking the sale of a Canadian pipeline on American soil to a Russian national?

I would have no problem with this.

 

[Orangeburst]

Considering that a peer war with China would be so quick and devastating, I question if any strategic resource woud play a part. It wont be like WW2.

 

[McDad]

Considering that a peer war with China would be so quick and devastating, I question if any strategic resource woud play a part. It wont be like WW2.

Show your math, Cowboy. How so?

 

[McDad]

I would have no problem with this.

If there is standing to say a business from another country but with infrastructure in the US cannot sell the business if the US government doesn't approve, then isn't it just as easy to say a business purchased by someone from another country with infrastructure on US soil can have their business confiscated by the US government? If Unkie Sam has complete say on any business with infrastructure in the US even if owned outside the US, then the standing applies to business purchased just as to businesses founded.