|
Why does nationalization of industries have to be "exclusive" for governments to participate? The government could manufacture anything from generic drugs, to housing, to aluminum cans, and sell them at profitable rates, without preventing private companies from doing the same thing. Sure, most governments aren't set up with the correct bureaucracies to have for-profit arms, but isn't that a solvable problem?
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:20 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Because you're using the income from selling those goods to fund things like the military, police and social services, so a business that doesn't have to do any of that is going to have a price advantage. Therefore, it had to be either full nationalization, or in whatever limited areas you do nationalize, you can't allow anyone else to compete. Contrary to your conjecture, the government might also be too competitive, with strong economies of scale, less extravagant executive compensation, and the ability to bypass regulation that private entities couldn't. Strong accounting safeguards would need to be in place to make sure the for-profit entities didn't send industries into a race to the bottom, or become monopolies in their own right. How is there such a disconnect on the operation of government programs? rudatron posted:Really though a lot of these schemes, in fact all of them short of full communism, are functionally equivalent to a government running on either a flat tax (inflation) or sales tax (limited-nationalization).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 19:35
|
|