3 ms·

Another anecdotal example - VW. Lower Saxony has 20% of the voting rights and 11.8% of ownership. Ever heard of Renault? Due to neo-liberal politics the owners

Another anecdotal example - VW. Lower Saxony has 20% of the voting rights and 11.8% of ownership. Ever heard of Renault? Due to neo-liberal politics the ownership has changed in more recent times, but they have been state owned for a lot of their history. The disease of neo-liberalism was a contributory factor to the demise of BL and the word neo-liberalism didn't even exist prior to 1982. The writing was not on the wall with BL during the post war years and their products were highly successful. The UK balance of payments was helped not hindered by the predecessor companies - the Rovers, Triumphs, Austins and what-not. The problem was investment. So in the years when BL was a lot of private companies they could not get investment from the city. This is because London only invests in companies they can asset strip, they don't speak the same banking language as in Germany where banks invest in companies and people. After the Labour government that preceded Thatcher rescued BL there was a problem due to the lack of investment, however BL did what they could to rise to the challenge despite the difficulties of strikes and useless managers. Then when Thatcher arrived BL was privatised. There was obviously no investment from the conservative government, that is not how they roll. They just wanted to sell the family silver. So then it comes to the media and how they portray the story as all the fault of the unions and the company being nationalised. Yet the story is not an honest one, the truth is that the UK banking sector just don't invest in actual companies that employ people that do actual work. They might front the cash for some asset stripping or they might invest in property, but never did they invest in UK industry. German culture was different, banks there have much better investment ideas, they can also see a better return from investing in their own concerns. The disease of neo-liberalism was enforced on the world so you have things like Renault that the state aren't allowed to own if they are to be in the clubs of the EU/IMF/GATT and what not. The people that manage companies are not automagically better people just because they work for vulture capitalists instead of the government.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
I'll give you an example of government interference in the British car industry. For entirely political reasons the factory for the Hillman Imp was built in Scotland. The idea was to bring employment to a run down area, the reality was an inexperienced workforce that struggled to get products out of the door. It's interesting to note we now make more cars in the UK than we ever did in the BL era.
hackeraccount 8y ago
It's not that the people who run the companies are better or worse. It's the customers. Is the company staying in business because once every two years a majority of the country pulls a lever for a group of people who then decide to vote to keep a company in business by sending money their way or is it staying in business because people spend money. I have a lot more faith in decisions that get made because people put money down then because people put votes down. What's the line? A bet is a tax on bullshit. People say they like lots of things. They'll pay money they had to work to earn for a lot fewer - and they'll think about those a lot harder.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

I'll give you an example of government interference in the British car industry. For entirely political reasons the factory for the Hillman Imp was built in Scotland. The idea was to bring employment to a run down area, the reality was an inexperienced workforce that struggled to get products out of the door. It's interesting to note we now make more cars in the UK than we ever did in the BL era.

hackeraccount 8y ago

It's not that the people who run the companies are better or worse. It's the customers. Is the company staying in business because once every two years a majority of the country pulls a lever for a group of people who then decide to vote to keep a company in business by sending money their way or is it staying in business because people spend money. I have a lot more faith in decisions that get made because people put money down then because people put votes down. What's the line? A bet is a tax on bullshit. People say they like lots of things. They'll pay money they had to work to earn for a lot fewer - and they'll think about those a lot harder.