welcome to the new socialist kingdom of Britain

[Dauphin]

Is there much difference between a state owning 25% of a company and collecting 25% of the profit through dividends, and a state owning none of a company and collecting the 25% of the profits through taxation?
[/rhetorical]

[Aeson]

The question has blinders on. Because a company doesn't exist in a void. It exists in a market... which is supposedly "free", and with government supposedly an impartial regulator.

When government owns a stake in a specific company, it loses that impartiality (or whatever semblance of it was remaining). The competitors of the government held company are essentially paying (through taxes) to have the government screw them out of their just desserts.

[GePap]

All those capitalist in the markets seem to heartily approve of this new socialist system, given the immense stock market rallies today.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Aeson
The question has blinders on. Because a company doesn't exist in a void. It exists in a market... which is supposedly "free", and with government supposedly an impartial regulator.

When government owns a stake in a specific company, it loses that impartiality (or whatever semblance of it was remaining). The competitors of the government held company are essentially paying (through taxes) to have the government screw them out of their just desserts.

And when it has similar stakes in competitors?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dauphin
And when it has similar stakes in competitors?

So you're saying the gov is going to give me $110bn to startup an insurance company to compete with AIG?

[Dauphin]

No, I'm being rhetorical.

[Aeson]

Well your rhetorical points are flawed.

There is a difference between taxation and government holding equity, as I have explained.

There is also a fundamental problem with government trying to hold equity in every competitor too, which my own rhetorical question should have made rather obvious. (eg. that no government could fund everyone with half a brain that decided to go for the free billions, at least not without Zimbabwe style inflation.)

It's also patently obvious that government does not hold equal equity in all competitors.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Aeson
Well your rhetorical points are flawed.

Why?

I was asking the question to make people think about it, because of these types of question.

I don't see what the problem with this is.

Not because I don't see fundamental differences.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dauphin

I don't see what the problem with this is.

Not because I don't see fundamental differences.

Your question was:

"Is there much difference between a state owning 25% of a company and collecting 25% of the profit through dividends, and a state owning none of a company and collecting the 25% of the profits through taxation?"

[Zkribbler]

The proposals I've heard involve the government receiving either shares of non-voting preferred stock or else warrants. Either way, the private sector would continue to run the banks.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Aeson


Your question was:

"Is there much difference between a state owning 25% of a company and collecting 25% of the profit through dividends, and a state owning none of a company and collecting the 25% of the profits through taxation?"

And....?

I could have said "Is there any/much/no" or "What is the". You're choosing to bold means nothing to me.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aeson
The question has blinders on. Because a company doesn't exist in a void. It exists in a market... which is supposedly "free", and with government supposedly an impartial regulator.

When government owns a stake in a specific company, it loses that impartiality (or whatever semblance of it was remaining). The competitors of the government held company are essentially paying (through taxes) to have the government screw them out of their just desserts.

I think you might be watching too many tv commercials. Banks don't really compete.

Also the difference between the government getting a stake in a company and just taxing them is that when they own a stake they get more than when they just tax them. It's actually more fair that way. However, I don't think anyone is going to be hardasses with bankers either way.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dauphin

Not because I don't see fundamental differences.

Come on, the difference is obvious.

A levy on profits is indiscriminate. If the state has part ownership, then the state can influence internal bank decisionmaking in ways it simply can't if all it does is get a cut on profits.

That beyond the obvious difference than stake + part of profits > part of profits. After all, the state can claim its equity stake on its balance books as well.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dauphin
And....?

That is why your question was flawed. It promoted a fallacious premise that there was no real difference between taxation and holding equity.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Aeson


That is why your question was flawed. It promoted a fallacious premise that there was no real difference between taxation and holding equity.

The fact that the answer is yes makes it a flawed question?