However, if a country owned business is inside of a country and it needs more market share it will consume its own local market and turn to international markets, as natural law economic progression of business plays out. This will cause a detriment, as the people who regulate, create, or deal with monetary policy will feel a patriotic duty, or that an easy way to make money is to help their governments by helping the SOE's to do better, or, to even give them contracts that the SOE's may have inadvertently caused to be the only bidder of, or the most competitive bidder of. This is also true in nature, as called survival of the fittest. If the biggest animal in the pack brings in the most food the others will surround it to protect it from any other competition . As such, this creates another detriment for individuals as they get muscled out of market shares and the government SOE's take dips into new markets, needing, and consuming more market shares, conglomerating as they go. This will make it much harder for individuals to live their dream of being their own boss, and owning their own labors (Lockean Progression), as it will be very difficult to compete against a government.
So why is this bad? The SOE's keep going, they stay strong and there are jobs. Well, lets take the macro approach to SOE use in international commerce. (case example) The Venezuela State owned energy industry did not pay an American company, ~100 million that it owed. However, this American business was avoid of government ownership. So they just took it as a contract gone bad. What if the USA was a Communist country also, and the contract was done by a US SOE to Venezuela SOE? This could be cause for war or some kind of later detrimental affect. As many wars in the past have been of money and business territory. However, as the US is not Communist, Venezuela did not have any problem getting away with not paying them and being late for some time on their payments (I believe the US government did protect their citizens business though). So we have no war and American contractors will just be wary of doing business with them.
Lets take another case example. Lets say the whole world uses SOE's to acquire resources for their businesses. Each country on its own, has to provide for its local people. This means it would be country against country, and not business versus business. This also could lead to war or economic imperialism as there would be no one to stop countries from getting into fights over their SOE's. You say that would never happen, we would just use another country to arbitrate. Doubtful that that would help, because if government SOE's had complete control there would always be an angle and some sort of conflict of interest for a certain SOE to SOE business transaction or economic imperialist motive. Kind of like the old Soviet Union's bloc style trading. Where it traded with certain Bloc members that its economic imperialism felt would be more beneficial to the bloc than others. They were avoid of natural law economic competitive progression. So it left countries with huge corruption of the leading class. Which left the mass leaderships to feel the flush and the individual worker to feel tired and abused. Apply this to Country SOE v Country SOE and it could leave whole countries in shambles much like what happens when whole government's get involved with physical weapons. However, this is instead with economic weapons (SOE's). AS one country becomes stronger and stronger until it is a national threat to its fellow commercial traders.
However, lets look at another case. You say we can find equilibrium with SOE use. That is hard, humans are competitive in nature, and humans work in the SOE's. This would inherently over time cause an influx of SOE's to crush local markets then turn to international markets. Plus, link in the idea of country v. country instead of business v. business too. The mere fact that SOE's would exist using the natural law progression of economics through SOE national interest causes government members to circle around them to make money, to dominate markets, to vest, and to further their own national interests. This would then be considered economic warfare, much like the conclusions I have come too as SOE v individual or corporation avoid of government ownership is war (definitionaly: the pushing of one side for national economics by use of state owned enterprise to build military and defensive technology, and to further be able to use force to acquire political clout, or currency stocks and the huge imbalance that causes world economic instability) and business v business is natural law progression of competition.
Therefore, the use of SOE's to pad ones economy, then to enter anothers market, and finally allow certain specific national interest to enter the crushed market to obtain through use of SOE's, national interest of resources acquisition, debt ratios, strategic military political clout, and national interest etc. is: illegal, anti-trustworthy, bad business practices, and a showing of bad faith after they were allowed into the international market to try and help their country. SOE's should not be allowed to be in foreign markets as they can easily use their size and strength to pry open markets and allow more SOE's in that will inherently focus on national interests. The fact that no individual or corporation can compete with an SOE that is not held back by strategic slow eroding strategies should be cause enough for serious concern of huge SOE conglomerating businesses competing in international commerce.
You say, no it should not, because we can watch and control the use of Foreign SOE's in industries and market places. Then I say, look to the world crash and certain blatant red flags flying so high that any high school economic student, if pointed out to them, could understand the logic. The SOE's economic dominance and inherent natural need to feed its owners, has caused a world crash so that its national interests can grow, and obtain more market shares as it has, and is doing. SOE's unregulated and uncontrolled as through natural law economic progression are for national interests and not fair business competition. They will dominate with full force of national interest cloaking their steps as much as allowed.
Therefore, stopping full SOE international commerce is not feasible in real time. Though, (,) we could at least slow the progression by placing proper strictly scrutinized regulations on them. These laws should be properly written to hold back governments from being able to use their SOE's to unfairly compete, cause monopolistic, or monopsonistic style national economic interest, which unchecked cause world economic collapses. So that it may acquire more political clout, business contracts, and conglomerate their SOE's bigger, while the crushed markets can barely struggle to survive, rebuild without being forced to allow them to be purchased by or invested heavily in their markets by a foreign SOE.
Where SOE's have become strategically the strongest businesses in the world with full governmental force behind them. These laws need to be properly placed so as to slow the economic dominance of those countries which still use heavy SOE's. The use of SOE's used to be a very big regulation area in international trade. So much so that those countries using them as much as China is using them were not allowed into Free World Trade Societies. This is true and there are historical documents pertaining to the fear and predictions of the use of SOE's unchecked and unregulated in international trade. The reason for this is because of exactly what you have seen happen hear over the last two crashes, the .com service crash and the mortgage service crashes. As such I have dubbed this crash the SOE crash of 2008-2010. Furthermore, I am very irate with China for trying to blame the US and other countries for this crash when its very own use of heavy SOE's in international commerce made the fear of Communist Economics come true. Now they are gaining resources, contracts and their SOE's are growing faster than ever. Which, as a government entity allows them to have full incite to national military and political acquisitions.
As such individuals or individual corporations avoid of government ownership are a good thing in international commerce. They breed competition and creation, avoid of national interest. This causes less wars in the world and even furthers peace processes as countries try and work together to get their individuals or corporations to interact with each other. When State Owned Enterprises are used to the mass quantity of being in the very structure of economic foundations of the international industrial trade arena, they are used to cause economic warfare through a strategic dominant national interest policy, and are trying to intertwine themselves into other countries economic foundations. There are laws that should be created to infuse the world with economic stability and peace. SOE's as such used by the Old Soviet Union or Communist bloc and the new Chinese Communist SOE strategy are a threat to international peace and economic stability.
P.S. selling stocks of an SOE that reports to a national interest is a cloak of national interest.
P.S.S., I am also upset that the Chinese government keeps trying to call countries use of being careful of letting Chinese use their SOE's to invest in economic infrastructures as protectionism, tariffs, or any such thing as that. There is no barriers from individuals, or corporations avoid of government ownership or cloaked government ownership, that should be stopped in world trade. It is pure sovereignty and defense from economic imperialism. However, blatant SOE's should be strictly scrutinized, as the trace is complete and economic warfare by way of SOE is a dominant trait in the World Crash.