It doesn’t, I was just replying to your statement,
“Please name some federal territory that can be sold to another country. Then I’ll go talk with the American citizens living there and inform them they have to move, and it was all your idea.”
I think it would be more accurate to say that the federal government is mortgaging such assets. Actually, encumbering them.
In addition to Alaska, wasn’t the Louisiana Purchase acquired by, well, purchase? Perhaps France would like it back. Not sure how the Midwest would feel about that, but I’m sure they’d deal. Sell the Gadsden Purchase back to Mexico. It seems like overt transfer of inhabited land between countries by sale was once comparatively common.
I asked that very question a few weeks ago and the general consensus was, besides it being nothing more than a drop in the bucket, it would likely cause the world market of gold to collapse due to such a large amount being sold at once.
How is the archvillainry and world domination industry doing these days?
The government does sell what assets it has. That much-ballyhooed end to analog television? That’s to sell off those frequencies and make billions of dollars for the treasury. Same with cell phones and lots of other pieces of bandwidth. Oil and other mineral and lumber rights are leased to industry all the time.
Mostly, though, the government doesn’t have much to sell. There are no nationalized industries (bank jokes notwithstanding). We can’t sell territory. We can’t sell Yellowstone National Park or the Smithsonian or the White House. Selling gold might be a good long-term strategy but in the short run the market would go hysterical.
The government is the government because it represents longevity and stability. Selling off assets is the opposite of that. It would be a bad idea short and long term even if there were any meaningful amount of money to be had, which there isn’t. Shaking customers confidence in trillions of dollars of treasury paper to recoup a couple of billion here and there is economic suicide.
Much of the TARP was actually used to buy stock in banks which, at least in theory, will later be sold off to recover the money. So at least part of the debt will be paid off by selling gov’t assets.
I don’t understand the argument that selling federally owned property means it is no longer part of America. The federal government owns most of Alaska; if it sold it to private owners, it is no less a part of America than it was when it was federally owned.
Selling Federally owned land to foreign governments makes it foreign territory. Selling Federally owned land to private entities does not.
So why must federal land sales be limited to foreign governments? If the goal is raising cash, that can be accomplished by selling land to individuals as well.
There is a difference between selling land (even to a foreign government) and transferring sovereignty. On the one hand, a government (say in the form of a sovereign wealth fund) could buy real estate in the United States for investment purposes. Simply by virtue of being owned by the Overseas Investment Fund of the Ministry of National Investments of the Government of Ruritania (which has become wealthy by virtue of its vast reserves of bat guano and is looking for investment outlets for its capital), that beachfront property in Miami does not cease to be part of the United States (or of the State of Florida, or Dade County). U.S. laws (and Florida laws and local municipal ordinances) would all still apply. The land would be subject to whatever federal, state, and local taxes it was subject to before. Absent some agreement or treaty to the contrary, the Ruritanian Government would simply be a private landowner in Dade County, Florida, U.S.A.
Conversely, transferring sovereignty over territory doesn’t automatically mean assuming ownership of real estate contained therein. When we bought territory from Mexico or Russia or other countries, the treaties generally stipulated that all publicly owned land became the property of the United States government (e.g., in the treaty with Russia for the Alaskan Cession, “In the cession of territory and dominion made by the preceding article are included the right of property in all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and all public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices which are not private individual property”.) However, privately owned real property was not nationalized; it simply went from being privately owned real property under the jurisdiction of the Russian Empire to being privately owned real property under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
Hardly.
The government owns lots and lots of assets. There was a thread on this a few months ago.
Unfortunately, in a ‘down’ and/or illiquid market, it often isn’t a good time to sell.
There are highways. Airports. Buildings. Bridges. Underutilized military bases. The Presidio in San Francisco. You could privatize government agencies like the FDA. You could privatize the Post Office. You could privatize NASA.
There are rusting hulks of old warships parked just north of Concord, CA. There (used to be) a fleet of SR-71 Blackbirds that nobody wanted to use. There are 600 million barrels of oil sitting in salt domes. There are trucks. Cars. I think there is still a bunch of helium being stored somewhere in Oklahoma. Lord only knows what the Smithsonian has buried in its basement that has never seen the light of day.
Now probably isn’t the time to do it, since you wouldn’t get good prices. But in different times, the gubmint could raise billions and billions of dollars by selling government assets. Which, of course, you and I supposedly ‘own’ together.
The problem is, I don’t think anyone has the slightest clue what the government balance sheet looks like. I’ve never seen an attempt at a giant tally of what the government (meaning, you and me) actually own and what it’s worth. I doubt anybody knows.
Other than power plants and 20% of the US population, you’re probably right.
That sounds like a spectacularly bad idea.
He didn’t say it was a good idea; he just said it could be done. Which it could be.
Let’s not have that thread again. 
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
[quote=“Exapno_Mapcase, post:26, topic:484772”]
The government does sell what assets it has. That much-ballyhooed end to analog television? That’s to sell off those frequencies and make billions of dollars for the treasury. Same with cell phones and lots of other pieces of bandwidth. Oil and other mineral and lumber rights are leased to industry all the time.
Why doesn’t the federal government take a serious look at the oil, gas, and mineral rights leases they already have and see if they can raise the rates they charge to the companies that hold these leases? I can’t remember when, but I read an article somewhere that said that the prices were set many years ago and were due to be increased dramatically. Just a though.
From all the hoopla surrounding the cecessionist movement in Alaska, maybe we could sell Alaska to them. Then Sarah P. could be the real Queen of Alaska, and wouldn’t be eligible for any US office.
Of course, that would spell the end of any wildlife refuge in the (potentially) former state, and would necessitate a redesign of the US flag, so there are some drawbacks. Or maybe that could open up a slot for another state - maybe we could entertain bids as to who would be the New No. 50.
Or would it be the New No. 49? I don’t know if Hawaii would like to retain the No. 50 honor or not.
I guess there are just so many complications to selling off assets. That must be why it doesn’t happen very often.
That’s understandable. What about ceding 5% of the stores in Fort Knox. The government could raise 6 billion dollars and invest that money on federal highways or making half of all federal buildings energy-efficient. While I am sure its unpopular, is anyone really saying that no country or investors would purchase a territory or lease a portion of a State if it were put on sale? Maybe I am too imaginative, but surely, there has to be a collection of items, territories, and technology that the United States owns that can be sold for trillion dollars or more.
The reason I am interested is that people are screaming that the roof is on fire and the dollar will collapse when the bill passes. How can that *possibly *happen when we have so much material wealth?
This is true in a sense, but doesn’t really contradict me. Most of what you mention falls into one of two categories.
Some things are already for sale and there turns out to be no real market for the product. The government has land and bases galore but probably the vast majority are in areas that most people don’t want to be. Moreover, the government didn’t have to pay attention to environmental standards and the bases are cesspools that a hundred brownfield funds wouldn’t be able to clean up. Rusting hulks and obsolete weaponry fall into a variation of the same category. There is some money to be had here but it’s essentially yard sale income.
The other category includes objects no more sellable than the White House. The FDA is one. Other than Libertarians, fortunately only a tiny percent of the population, the thought of letting the private sector inspect itself is anathema to almost every thinking adult. The Post Office, as everybody ought to know, stopped receiving government money years ago and has to pay its own way. Although some toll roads have already been leased to private firms, the Interstate Highway System is not going to get sold and its infrastructure and bridges will stay in federal hands. NASA handles far too many military satellites to privatize. You will never deaccession the Smithsonian.
Leasing of rights has some potential but also has equal environmental hazards. Obama has already canceled leases given out by the Bush administration in its waning days. Everything is a trade off. If the costs are too high the money coming in doesn’t cover. In a Democratic administration the cost benefit calculations will shift dramatically.