1. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 18:57
    Originally posted by whodey
    So the state would take over unclaimed natural resources? Why only unclaimed natural resources? Why not just have government take over everything if your idea is soooo good?

    Right now government runs trillion dollar deficits, so we are to expect them to run a business?
    Morally, the government can't take over everything because someone else already owns some things. But the government can stake a claim to unclaimed natural resources because no one owns them yet.

    The government would not be running businesses; the running of the businesses would be outsourced to the franchise owners. But the franchises would be clients of the state and the state would have a contract-based claim on a percentage of the profits.
  2. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 19:10
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Looks like you are describing Norway's oil-funded state investment fund. It works to the degree that natural resources are available, even with Norway's significant oil wealth, it isn't enough to fund all of the government's operations. Natural resources just aren't that valuable compared to human capital; in most modern economies the services sector is the largest one.
    Well, I suggested starting with natural resources because I thought (though whodey proved me wrong) that the idea that the state could stake a claim to natural resources would be fairly uncontroversial. But the important and revolutionary point in my proposal is that the government would actively seek to acquire other profitable businesses. It's as if the Norwegian government used its oil revenue in part to fund its social model but in part to buy up Norwegian Air. The next year it uses the profits from oil revenue and Norwegian Air in part to fund its social model but in part to start buying up Norwegian shipping companies. It aims specifically to buy up profitable companies, and it keeps doing this every year. The process is continued until eventually the profits from the portfolio of state franchises are enough to pay for the necessary functions of government.
  3. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 19:271 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack
    First of all, I believe there needs to be fair competition. As long as the government still has the ability to make laws it can continually make rules to favor its business. In fact I cannot imagine the government not using its other power to bolster its own business.
    Second, I worry how we neutrally decide which industries need government industr ...[text shortened]... stries go in states like Florida and Ohio because they likely decide the next national election.
    The question would not be what industries "need" government industry, because this is a question of what the state can pragmatically acquire at any one time. The government could and should choose to target whatever business it thought might be a profitable state asset; but because this would take place on the open market, no state coercion would be involved. I guess this might become part of election manifestos - should the state seek to acquire Pepsi or Cola?

    Naturally there would need to be legal mechanisms to ensure a level playing field.

    It would also be very important for the state to resist the temptation to relocate businesses for political reasons. This is one way in which state-owned industries fail: when political considerations take precedence over the pursuit of profit. Thus, those kind of decisions would be handled independently by the franchise owners, who would be instructed to maximise profits. The only difference between these state-owned industries and a normal capitalist enterprise would be the question of where those profits go. And this, as far as I can see, would be the only clear advantage that the state industries would have: citizens would know that in buying goods and services from a state franchise, they would in part be funding their own health care, education, pension, etc.
  4. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 19:30
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I'd certainly prefer less government not more.
    But this would be "less government" because it would aim to replace funds derived from taxation (coercive) with profits accrued from the normal operation of business which just happened to be state-owned (non-coercive).
  5. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 19:45
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    You think the Soviet government operated at a profit?!
    He seems, on the basis of his comments, to think that the Soviet Union operated under a system of free competition between state-owned industries and private corporations in an open market!
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    14 Dec '13 20:19
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    Morally, the government can't take over everything because someone else already owns some things. But the government can stake a claim to unclaimed natural resources because no one owns them yet.

    The government would not be running businesses; the running of the businesses would be outsourced to the franchise owners. But the franchises would be clients of the state and the state would have a contract-based claim on a percentage of the profits.
    It's not moral for the government to take things? You mean like our money through taxation? You mean like our land to build HUD developments around the country or other various projects via immenent domain? Surely you don't mean this.

    Those who run businesses could keep their jobs and their income. All you would have to do is inform them that they no longer make all the decisions. It would be akin to taxation. Sure they lose some wealth, but they are able to keep some to survive on. That is the morality of socialism......or are you saying that socialism is immoral?
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    14 Dec '13 20:22
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    But this would be "less government" because it would aim to replace funds derived from taxation (coercive) with profits accrued from the normal operation of business which just happened to be state-owned (non-coercive).
    All that would happen are more broken promises. The government would lay claim to future natural resources while promising to use those natural resources to pay down debt. Unfortunately, there is zero incentive to pay down debt, so all that would happen is that the government would spend twice as much as they take in via your little capitalistic adventure while preventing private industry from having access to it.

    What you fail to realize is that those in government have zero credibility. Why on earth would anyone surrender more power to them no matter what they promise in return?
  8. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 20:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    It's not moral for the government to take things? You mean like our money through taxation? You mean like our land to build HUD developments around the country or other various projects via immenent domain? Surely you don't mean this.

    Those who run businesses could keep their jobs and their income. All you would have to do is inform them that they no l ...[text shortened]... survive on. That is the morality of socialism......or are you saying that socialism is immoral?
    But according to my proposal, the government isn't going to nationalise these businesses by force. It's going to try to buy them out on the open market. Those who run the businesses will choose to sell if they judge it to be in their individual interest. Their staff can indeed keep their jobs and their income; or they can seek other work, as they may prefer.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    14 Dec '13 21:07
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    But according to my proposal, the government isn't going to nationalise these businesses by force. It's going to try to buy them out on the open market. Those who run the businesses will choose to sell if they judge it to be in their individual interest. Their staff can indeed keep their jobs and their income; or they can seek other work, as they may prefer.
    So you say you don't want to sell out to Uncle Sam?

    I sure would hate to see what an audit might do to your business......and what about this? Could this be an EPA violation? Hmm?
  10. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 21:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    All that would happen are more broken promises. What you fail to realize is that those in government have zero credibility. Why on earth would anyone surrender more power to them no matter what they promise in return?
    I see this as a way to limit government power, since the contributions to state covers would be voluntary on the part of consumers who chose to buy from state-owned enterprises. Governments can break promises in any economic system.
  11. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    14 Dec '13 21:19
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    The question would not be what industries "need" government industry, because this is a question of what the state can pragmatically acquire at any one time. The government could and should choose to target whatever business it thought might be a profitable state asset; but because this would take place on the open market, no state coercion would be involv ...[text shortened]... a state franchise, they would in part be funding their own health care, education, pension, etc.
    Let's use your example of the government creating a soda company. Is it fair for the government to pay for advertising that says their soda is better because it is government owned? It would use presidential speeches, governmental interviews to promote itself. The government would use political volunteers, tax free donations, promises of other future jobs and everything else that government can offer to make sure it can beat down its competition.

    It is inconceivable to think that Congress would not make laws using its industry to cross promote other goals (union activity, environmental, healthcare minimum wage, progressiveness) There would likely be laws to promote its product in the governmental model. For example there would be "taxes" on the old company if it does not meet health standards, or give enough health insurance pension benefits to its workers or have a sufficiently progressive pay scale or have enough women or minorities or use too much foreign labor. Congressman would make deals to help constituents instead of what is needed.

    Government would not care if it hurts the old company or its stockholders. Government simply expands so it has more influence. I cannot imagine a way to more quickly forego our rights than to allow government to run everything. It will mandate what we buy, how we produce it, where we produce it, how much everyone gets compensated.
  12. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 21:201 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    So you say you don't want to sell out to Uncle Sam?

    I sure would hate to see what an audit might do to your business......and what about this? Could this be an EPA violation? Hmm?
    You could have constitutional protections to ensure that governments couldn't specifically target companies for purchase unless they were already for sale. The state could, however, seek to bid for any profitable company that was put on the market by its owners.
  13. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    66636
    14 Dec '13 21:22
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    I see this as a way to limit government power, since the contributions to state covers would be voluntary on the part of consumers who chose to buy from state-owned enterprises. Governments can break promises in any economic system.
    The government could eliminate competitions in essentials and charge higher prices. It could call everything "profit" and essential raise taxes without calling it a tax.

    I certainly hope we never try something like this.
  14. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 23:231 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack
    The government could eliminate competitions in essentials and charge higher prices. It could call everything "profit" and essential raise taxes without calling it a tax.

    I certainly hope we never try something like this.
    Well, if the state tries to sell things at above market price, then presumably some brave entrepreneur will step in, start a new company, charge cheaper prices and make a success of his business. Because that's how the market works.

    And even if the government does do what you suggest, it would surely be no more coercive than raising taxes in the first place!
  15. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    14 Dec '13 23:42
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Let's use your example of the government creating a soda company. Is it fair for the government to pay for advertising that says their soda is better because it is government owned? It would use presidential speeches, governmental interviews to promote itself. The government would use political volunteers, tax free donations, promises of other futur ...[text shortened]... mandate what we buy, how we produce it, where we produce it, how much everyone gets compensated.
    It's fair for the government to pay for advertising as long as it comes out of the profits of the business (i.e., not from supplementary taxation).

    It's fair for the president and politicians to promote state franchises in exactly the same way that it's fair for the president of a company to pay for airtime to promote his business.

    Companies already get in trouble for breaking employment law, which is created by governments, so I'm not sure what is so worrying about the idea that there might be legal standards imposed on the old company.

    Actually, it does occur to me that another advantage of this scheme would be to encourage philanthropy. For instance, the government promotes its soda company under the slogan: "Think UncleSamSoda rots your teeth? Well, it's paying your dentist's salary!" In order to compete, CocaCola starts donating part of its profits to fund research into new dental treatments...
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree