NationStates Jolt Archive

Yay for (slightly) misleading titles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6975606.stm
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,503516,00.html

Heh, I like the different takes on the issue.

Anyways, it seems more and more en vogue for European industries to be declared important to "the nation" (read: they allow politicians to score favours with voters and lobbyists), which then qualifies them for special assistance, be it in the form of takeover protection (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9621955) or government assistance for deals and projects and so on. Italy (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/13/business/bxinsure.php) is good at it, and France (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/03/business/utility.php) is of course working hard to take a leadership in Europe (and in the way that apparently no one in the French government is even embarrassed by the thought, they might well manage). The only major exception has been Britain, where the government has allowed even ancient firms to be treated fairly and bought and sold on the market where they belong.

Across the Iron Curtain Putin is building the 'Gazprom State featuring Russia' and half of China's and India's economy are based on state-owned firms.

Is this the future? With global markets liberalised, will people (paradoxically) once again have to fall victim to the wishes of protectionist interest groups? Is economic policy in the first half of the 21st century move towards not finding good owners for companies, but those with the right passports and in favour with politicians?

How do you think "industrial policy" is going to turn out in the future, with some countries pretty openly using state-owned or state-affiliated firms as policy instruments?

I don't think we're rushing into a new wave of such. One, the world has gone way too international to justify large scale protections like this, that would invite fiscal suicide as the multinationals quickly pull out and take their money with them.

I DO see that certain industries that are near and dear to the nation at hand for whatever reason may go that way, but then that has been the case forever and a day and I seriously doubt that it not changing will cause any ripples.

Britain may let most firms be traded freely (I think Tesco's was blocked from buying rival supermarket, Safeways), but I've been hearing a lot of complaints about the 'all mergers are good mergers' culture here in the UK. Apparently it has been damaging the diversity and competitiveness of commerce in the UK.

I will go find find sources and make an argument later though. For now I'm just working from hearsay.

Britain may let most firms be traded freely (I think Tesco's was blocked from buying rival supermarket, Safeways), but I've been hearing a lot of complaints about the 'all mergers are good mergers' culture here in the UK.
Well, I was specifically thinking about the "national champions" idea. As far as I can see, Britain seems to be the only country where politicians have resisted the urge to get involved.

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8582323
Britons have bought up foreign firms and expanded abroad for years, where local rules permitted them to. But foreigners are now shopping even more enthusiastically in Britain, because national champions are not protected. Foreign firms own everything from London's water supply to its airports and are about to pocket what remains of Britain's steel industry.

Time was when that would have caused a lot of upset. Richard Lambert, the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), recalls that in the 1980s, when Pilkington, a big glassmaker, received a hostile bid, there were marches and protests in St Helens, the firm's home town in north-west England. Then Pilkington itself went global. When a Japanese firm took it over early in 2006, no one raised an eyebrow.

There were whimpers when Rover, the last British-owned mass carmaker, was finally dismantled by Chinese creditors in 2005, but the government paid out only £15m to help the workers, and that was just before an election. Britain, after all, is still exporting 1.3m cars a year under American, French and Japanese labels. Sir Callum McCarthy, head of the Financial Services Authority, says the last time a foreign takeover in the financial sector caused a stir was in 1999, when the Bank of Scotland launched a hostile takeover bid for England's National Westminster Bank.

In a global economy with mobile capital it can be hard to say where ultimate ownership lies anyway. The real test is whether a foreign buyer manages the investment in Britain well and improves productivity. “I don't mind if Spain owns Terminal 5 [at Heathrow airport] because they can't take it back with them,” says Sir Digby Jones, a former boss of the CBI.

Everyone does it. Do you realize how many major businesses would have gone under without US protection? The auto industry, the legacy airlines...

Perhaps British politicians don't protect businesses from mergers, but they sure do protect some of them from potentially damaging law suits and inquiries when they feel like it, BAE being the obviously example.

How about the great and glorious declaration that Danone International is a vital strategic interest for France, a national champion. That one totally baffles me.

Is this the future? With global markets liberalised, will people (paradoxically) once again have to fall victim to the wishes of protectionist interest groups? Is economic policy in the first half of the 21st century move towards not finding good owners for companies, but those with the right passports and in favour with politicians?Sounds about right. I'm not surprised by this, are you?

How do you think "industrial policy" is going to turn out in the future, with some countries pretty openly using state-owned or state-affiliated firms as policy instruments?Pretty much a redux of the cycle we've seen before. The people won't care until there's a crisis, then there will be a reaction to the crisis, only it will be the wrong one, etc.

When people have to change their surnames to match their employers, then we know we're screwed.

The US merely helps out companies that are going bankrupt. Though I could see the government taking over certain industries. Specifically, those that normally contract with the US government, especially the military. It might actually be a good move for the government - they would have another source of income apart from taxes. And if the military could buy equipment at cost, we might be able to reduce the defense budget.

The US merely helps out companies that are going bankrupt. Though I could see the government taking over certain industries. Specifically, those that normally contract with the US government, especially the military. It might actually be a good move for the government - they would have another source of income apart from taxes. And if the military could buy equipment at cost, we might be able to reduce the defense budget.
Here is THE best way to reduce the defense budget:

The War in Iraq Costs (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html)

When people have to change their surnames to match their employers, then we know we're screwed.
Like:

Hardy Microsoft

Axel Exxon

Willy Benz

Wendy Burger King

Peter Wacker (http://www.wackergroup.com/webapp/ecomm/Conductor)

Etc, ad absurdum

Here is THE best way to reduce the defense budget:

The War in Iraq Costs (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html)

But...but...that would make too much sense!

Like:

Hardy Microsoft

Axel Exxon

Willy Benz

Wendy Burger King

Peter Wacker (http://www.wackergroup.com/webapp/ecomm/Conductor)

Etc, ad absurdum

Kind of like the novel Jennifer Government, of which this forum is a scion of its spin off project NationStates.

Like:

Hardy Microsoft

Axel Exxon

Willy Benz

Wendy Burger King

Peter Wacker (http://www.wackergroup.com/webapp/ecomm/Conductor)

Etc, ad absurdumI fail to see how your use of 'ad absurdum' is justified. I fail to see anything absurd about the names you have listed. Surely people of these forenames already work at these corporations. I don't see the corporations objecting to their employees forenames because a competitor has a similar name.

Corporatism is not so much "the wave of the future" as it is the historical norm. Corporate power structures will not willingly give up state protection, and their dominance on public policy in America and elsewhere will stop any transition from this system through parliamentary means.

What gets to me is how Conservatives give out corporate welfarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare, yet deny workers social wefare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare. As a left-libertarian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarian, I feel that public assistance to buisness should be ended before transfer payments to those in need. The biggest "welfare queens" are big buisness capitalists. I would eventually like to ideally see corporative control of industry give way to cooperative ownership by the workers, and the welfare state replaced by mutual aid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_%28politics%29.