NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been wondering lately, would a government buyout of all corporations be a good idea. They already provide tax shelters and limit their liability. It would effectively destroy the stock market, but the stock market would no longer be a necessary market.

The way I see it, taxpayers already pay a shitload to support and insure corporations and most of those taxpayers see absolutely nothing from it. So instead of having a corporation be publicly traded, how about making it truly publicly owned?

Governments have repeatedly, since the beginning of civilization, shown themselves to run things incompetently and inefficiently. More so than the private market does for most things. There is no competition, and the budget situation is much different for a government-owned company than a privately owned one, there's much less incentive to meet the budget.

Governments have repeatedly, since the beginning of civilization, shown themselves to run things incompetently and inefficiently. More so than the private market does for most things. There is no competition, and the budget situation is much different for a government-owned company than a privately owned one, there's much less incentive to meet the budget.

While I agree that government can be inefficient, I also believe that these inefficiencies would be made up by the importing and production benefits that the government would have. Competition could still be provided by privately owned businesses. Corporations generally have very little competition these days as it is. Also incentives can be offered to workers and board members of these corporations to encourage performance.

While I agree that government can be inefficient, I also believe that these inefficiencies would be made up by the importing and production benefits that the government would have. Competition could still be provided by privately owned businesses. Corporations generally have very little competition these days as it is. Also incentives can be offered to workers and board members of these corporations to encourage performance.
It would be useless to have the government compete with private businesses, because their budget (the government's) is near unlimited. And most corporations do have at least some competition. Granted some like Microsoft have extremely little, but if you look at other major markets such as cars (GM, Ford, Toyota, etc.) or pharmeceuticals (Merck, Pfizer, Centecor, etc.) there is plenty.

I have been wondering lately, would a government buyout of all corporations be a good idea.
Don't do that . . . one major aspect of socialism or communism (i forget which) is that the state owns everything (and I, as a libertarian, am against centralizing power). Since they'd already own the corporations, what's to stop them from taking you?

The great thing about democracy is that it is meant to limit government's power, as long as its citizens are responsible. I do believe that the government would be difficult to restrain in forcing out small competitors, but the government can have self imposed restraints on spending amongst its corporations. Also, there would be foreign competition to also keep the government in check.

It's not a perfect plan, but I think it could lower our taxes drastically and allow the fed to have a better control over our monetary policy.

Don't do that . . . one major aspect of socialism or communism (i forget which) is that the state owns everything (and I, as a libertarian, am against centralizing power). Since they'd already own the corporations, what's to stop them from taking you?

Once again democracy should prevent that. Democracy is meant to ensure that the people stay in power.

The only difference between corporations today and what I have described would be where the profits go. The public provides insurance, tax breaks, profit, and labor for corporations, so why shouldn't they get the profit from them.

The goverment should only own companies that are natural monopolies (i.e. in the situation when it is economical cheaper to have just one company to produce a good), or public services that by nature cannot be profitable.

Even in cases of natural monopolies, or companies owning essencial structures, you can have those companies privatized, as long as you have a regulatory body to watch over them (since the potencial for abuse by a monopolist is huge)

Some markets, such as natural oligopolies with few possible companies due to their nature, also require regulation, but the goverment should not own companies.

All other markets, competition with very limited or un-existent goverment presence are what you need.

As someone said, in normal (competitive) markets, the goverment should not own companies, because those companies know that they can afford to be inneficient, since the state will bail them out.

As someone said, in normal (competitive) markets, the goverment should not own companies, because those companies know that they can afford to be inneficient, since the state will bail them out.

except, of course, that this is already the case with "privately" owned corporations, at least in terms of big capital.

the fundamental reason why the state should not own the corporations is that that would remove the last vestiges of division between the state and the capitalists - think of the os wars except that microsoft now has an army. it would be a huge concentration of power, and without a fundamental change in the structure of society away from hierarchy and stratification that means even more power put into the hands of an even tiny elite than we have currently.

Once again democracy should prevent that. Democracy is meant to ensure that the people stay in power.

Ack! Democracy? Tyranny By Majority doesn't sound so good to me.

The only difference between corporations today and what I have described would be where the profits go. The public provides insurance, tax breaks, profit, and labor for corporations, so why shouldn't they get the profit from them.

That makes a lot of sense. It's almost...capitalistic...we get what we pay for...same principle for the government actually.

except, of course, that this is already the case with "privately" owned corporations, at least in terms of big capital.

Indeed. Maybe we could stop subsidizing big business. I would be all for weaning the whiny bastards off the government teat.

I have a question FS. Couldn't we just change the liability laws so that corporations are more accountable for their actions? That would limit corporate hanky panky rather nicely I think. If you were a CEO, CFO, etc and knew you would get sued for everything you own and then some if you screwed up, wouldn't you be careful?

I have a question FS. Couldn't we just change the liability laws so that corporations are more accountable for their actions? That would limit corporate hanky panky rather nicely I think. If you were a CEO, CFO, etc and knew you would get sued for everything you own and then some if you screwed up, wouldn't you be careful?

even if we were allowed do that (which i would think would be fairly difficult given the current setup), i strongly suspect that in practice it would mostly work against small capital and big capital would still find ways around it. but this might just me being cynical of the ability of government to ever effectively regulate the capitalist elite when they are so often the same people, or at least share common interests and travel in the same circles (not to mention big capital's ability to hold governments that step out of line hostage by making the economy scream). as i see it, issues such as corporations getting away with things that would be crimes if you or i did them are just surface expressions of an overarching power structure that society is currently based around.

on the other hand, it certainly wouldn't hurt to attempt to make corporate execs and major investors more responsible for their actions and the actions they order others to take.

Don't do that . . . one major aspect of socialism or communism (i forget which) is that the state owns everything (and I, as a libertarian, am against centralizing power). Since they'd already own the corporations, what's to stop them from taking you?
Any form of Socialism is represented by public ownership of the means of production, not state ownership. There is a difference.

It's not a perfect plan, but I think it could lower our taxes drastically and allow the fed to have a better control over our monetary policy.

I'm not sure how taking up the burdens of ownership and operation of all corporations in the country would LOWER taxes. In fact, I'm pretty sure the only logical step in such a situation would be to raise them.

So, no, communism is not a good way to lower taxes.

Or a good anything.

Indeed. Maybe we could stop subsidizing big business. I would be all for weaning the whiny bastards off the government teat.

I have a question FS. Couldn't we just change the liability laws so that corporations are more accountable for their actions? That would limit corporate hanky panky rather nicely I think. If you were a CEO, CFO, etc and knew you would get sued for everything you own and then some if you screwed up, wouldn't you be careful?


I agree, big government is the problem, not the solution. The creation of a gargantuan monopoly has been tried before and proven to fail every time. It is why there are divestitures and spinoffs. The government is already too big - and look what a mess it is. They can't even get social security right.


I think that federal subsidies should be terminated immediately. Let free market run. It is stupid to pay millions of tax dollars to billion dollar companies.

I'm not sure how taking up the burdens of ownership and operation of all corporations in the country would LOWER taxes. In fact, I'm pretty sure the only logical step in such a situation would be to raise them.

So, no, communism is not a good way to lower taxes.

Or a good anything.

well, since corporations are designed to create wealth, it seems to me that they would be the source of funding for other things, no?

little known fact - soviet russia had extremely low personal income taxes

well, since corporations are designed to create wealth, it seems to me that they would be the source of funding for other things, no?

little known fact - soviet russia had extremely low personal income taxes

As well as extremely low incomes

While I agree that government can be inefficient, I also believe that these inefficiencies would be made up by the importing and production benefits that the government would have. Competition could still be provided by privately owned businesses. Corporations generally have very little competition these days as it is. Also incentives can be offered to workers and board members of these corporations to encourage performance.

Are you suggesting that companies are ok as long as they don't try to incorporate?

Corporations have a ton of competition. There are thousands of publicly traded companies.

Incentives are already offered to workers/board members

How would companies raise large amounts of capital without being able to incorporate?

As well as extremely low incomes

well yeah. but on the other hand, their economy was a mess. and on the other other hand their incomes haven't exactly improved during the post-bolshevik era - though the taxes they have to pay have.

the point remains. some form of social ownership of productive assests could theoretically mean lower taxes because instead of that huge pile of wealth being skimmed off by private owners, it could be used to fund other projects.

well yeah. but on the other hand, their economy was a mess. and on the other other hand their incomes haven't exactly improved during the post-bolshevik era - though the taxes they have to pay have.

the point remains. some form of social ownership of productive assests could theoretically mean lower taxes because instead of that huge pile of wealth being skimmed off by private owners, it could be used to fund other projects.

Well, yeah, that would make sense.

Hopefully Russia will get her act together soon.

Are you suggesting that companies are ok as long as they don't try to incorporate?

Corporations have a ton of competition. There are thousands of publicly traded companies.

Incentives are already offered to workers/board members

How would companies raise large amounts of capital without being able to incorporate?

There are huge amounts of investments that can be used. In fact with the elimination of the stock market, bonds and futures markets will grow and can be used in borrowing functions.

There are huge amounts of investments that can be used. In fact with the elimination of the stock market, bonds and futures markets will grow and can be used in borrowing functions.

Companies run soley on debt? Think of the return that would be required by the investors. Plus, they would have no voting rights, all power would be concentrated.

How could they raise money with futures?

Companies run soley on debt? Think of the return that would be required by the investors. Plus, they would have no voting rights, all power would be concentrated.

How could they raise money with futures?

Through the use of collars and hedges with futures, stock performance can be imitated.

But you do make a good point of how this could cap the growth of small businesses, and I'm unsure how to address it.

Through the use of collars and hedges with futures, stock performance can be imitated.

But you do make a good point of how this could cap the growth of small businesses, and I'm unsure how to address it.

You can't have an option if there is no underlying asset. And so you can't create synthetic positions.

Furthermore, they don't have anything to do with the initial raising of equity.

Don't do that . . . one major aspect of socialism or communism (i forget which) is that the state owns everything (and I, as a libertarian, am against centralizing power). Since they'd already own the corporations, what's to stop them from taking you?

It's communism and it's not a bad idea at heart - equalizing the playing field by having everyone in the same class, with the same amountof value. Trouble is 2 things:
-not everyone likes the classless system
-the officials in governement don't stay committed to the good of all.

Socialism is the oppsoite of capitalism. Before you turn your nose up, think about this first. Capitalism is what drives our current economic, political, and social society. The dollar and how much profit IS the main focus of Capitalism. when the focus philosophy of domestic and foreign policy banks almost entirely, though camouflaged in pretty linens, on what can and will be gained we can ll know that we've lost sight of our destiny.
At one time America was a beacon of light in a world of darkness. Personal freedoms and lack of strict oppresive controls. Peace and security. All from outside heard all of these wornderful things. Then they got hear and still, though things were very tough, it was better then where they came from.
But now, our Nation is blemished. Not by a politician or certain administrations screw-ups, but by the NEW BOTTOMLINE to America:

How much can we make?

Government is run by corporations. We have a shadow plutocracy.

Government is run by corporations. We have a shadow plutocracy.

...corporations which are run by *gasp* the shareholders...so the government is really run by us. Unless you are too foolish to invest.

Youve got it wrong, corporations own the government! Certainly in the US anyways hehe

Nationalizing companies is a communist phoilosophy and it doesnt really work, in some areas, say power, communication etc it could work and certainly public transport it does work much better. Theres alot of call in the UK to re nationalize the railways for example.

...corporations which are run by *gasp* the shareholders...so the government is really run by us. Unless you are too foolish to invest.


The largest shareholder of Coca Cola as like 7% of all the stocks. The thing is, most corporation stocks are spread out for such a huge number of shareholders, that no one (except the board of directors of the company) controls the thing.