> the owner then can chose to re-invest locally if they choose to

Only at the conditions imposed by the IMF. Usually that means the state has to steer away from anything that could be profitable and focus only on what is not palatable to foreign capital.

It also means states can't apply import taxes, thus making their industries instantly obsolete. It's pretty much a huge transfer of wealth from inside to outside.

> Only at the conditions imposed by the IMF. Usually that means the state has to steer away from anything that could be profitable and focus only on what is not palatable to foreign capital.

Im going to need a direct example please

Just check the IMF page on "Conditionality"[0]. Check the "Prior actions" sections and see "Elimination of price controls" there.

Also see this video[1] about Vietnam, around halfway through it explains pretty well how it works.

Edit: I realize now you asked about the "forced privatization of industries" sentence. That's thoroughly stressed accross all IMF literature, and you can see it happen in pretty much every country that takes IMF "aid".

-[0]: https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/02/21...

-[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMubOw5H-yo

I just want to note nationalized industries have an incredibly unfair advantage over private industry. Since nationalized industries have no real need to make money at all. Widget A cost $65 to make? Nah, let's sell it at $5. Most of the fund comes from capitalist states. It wouldn't make much of sense for them to fund an economic system that is often antagonistic to capitalism.

so are you mainly refering to state-owned assets rather than privately owned assets? State-owned companies are notorious for being badly run...no wonder they are overrun by foreign competition. Would it not be possible for a state to IPO these assets or give shares directly to the population rather than sell?