What are the pros and cons of state owned businesses?

[Az]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


You wish it could work better. I am not even sure it could work at all. And I never feel necessary to replace a system working satisfactorily by a system that we dont know if it will work.

And I claim it can work better than yours. Why deny progress? As in any new invention first you have a prototype, and then you test it.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Azazel


And I claim it can work better than yours. Why deny progress? As in any new invention first you have a prototype, and then you test it.

OK, make a prototype of your system, and test it ...

[Az]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


If you ensure proper control (that is the right to fire incompetent managers and lazy workers) and they are financially independant, I dont see the purpose of your reform.

the profit will be in the pocket of the representative government of all the people, and not in the pockets of a "chosen" few.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Azazel


the profit will be in the pocket of the representative government of all the people, and not in the pockets of a "chosen" few.

If this is the final purpose of your system, you will be badly desappointed (and your followers much more).

[Kuciwalker]

Don't fix what ain't broke

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
If this is the final purpose of your system, you will be badly desappointed (and your followers much more).

It is obvious such a system requires a strict control from democratic institutions: This means the 'controllers' regularily change to avoid longlasting relations of corruption, and that they don't have a strictly bureaucratic culture, to have the evaluation be somewhat successful. The dire example of the Crédit Lyonnais should always remain in mind, to know what to NOT do.

[Az]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


If this is the final purpose of your system, you will be badly desappointed (and your followers much more).

Could you please make your posts more enigmatic and vague, I think I understand them too well.

[Kuciwalker]

So your system require intensive maintenance and strict control. Whereas ours, you just sit back and watch it take care of itself.

Capitalism is far more stable and far less dangerous.

[Az]

I don't think that the billions of poor in the world would agree.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by skywalker
So your system require intensive maintenance and strict control. Whereas ours, you just sit back and watch it take care of itself.

Capitalism is far more stable and far less dangerous.

Joking?

[Kuciwalker]

No. Capitalism is self-regulating.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
If you ensure proper control (that is the right to fire incompetent managers and lazy workers) and they are financially independant, I dont see the purpose of your reform.

Yes you fire incompetent managers. The purpose for the reform is a system that works better for society; no poverty, exreme inequality, financial crisis, and depression to name a few. What does that have to do with firing incompetent managers?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by skywalker
No. Capitalism is self-regulating.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, the magic of state-sponsored industry

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What does that have to do with firing incompetent managers?

Daily efficiency of the system. If people aren't accountable for their performance, they'll have very little involvement in making the public company work properly (this is what killed the Soviet economy).

And if public companies aren't efficient, you are making our opponents right.