3 ms·

You haven't really spelled out the issue, though. From your comment it sounds like nationalizing something is bad because the entrepreneurs won't make money? I

You haven't really spelled out the issue, though. From your comment it sounds like nationalizing something is bad because the entrepreneurs won't make money? If the business being nationalized is one that is a drain on the economy in some sense, then why wouldn't it be good for the country to nationalize it? I say "nationalize" broadly here, not necessarily in the way China implemented things. It could even be the creation quasi-public organization like Amtrak. Obviously the key here is not to be as heavy-handed as China and to not nationalize everything, lest we be a communist state. However there are definitely things, like banks, that should have a public competitor.

jhugo 5y ago
> From your comment it sounds like nationalizing something is bad because the entrepreneurs won't make money? Nationalizing something is bad because the next entrepreneurs in that field know they won't make money, so they won't build.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I’m not following. My original comment called for the nationalization of things that drain the entire economy. This implies said companies have already “won,” and that they’ve made (a lot of) money. Your comment would make more sense if I was calling for the transitioning to communism. Uber, for example wouldn’t be nationalized because its product type hasn’t become so pervasive that a majority of Americans use it. Debit cards and their ilk have.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    I believe a lot of times in the US, those companies become public utilities [0], which are publicly owned through stock (or privately owned)[1] but are highly regulated by the government and also I think exempt from laws prohibiting monopolies[2]. I'm not sure what's the process of a company going from a regular public company to a public utility though. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility [1]: https://marketrealist.com/p/are-utility-companies-public-or-private/ https://marketrealist.com/p/are-utility-companies-public-or-... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility
  - rkk3 5y ago
    > the nationalization of things that drain the entire economy. Not sure how you would draw this line. Do we nationalize the apple/google app stores because they are taking 30% cuts? Or Visa/Mastercard/Stripe because they take a cut on every transaction?
- rkk3 5y ago
  > Nationalizing something is bad because the next entrepreneurs in that field know they won't make money, so they won't build. There is noting implicit that means they don't make money. The process of nationalization doesn't have to result in 0 compensation, it could be run like any other buyout. That being said being government run has its own issues.
  - jhugo 5y ago
    The "buyout" is for the companies that were nationalised. But the next entrepreneurs in the field have to compete with the government.
    - rkk3 5y ago
      > the next entrepreneurs in the field have to compete with the government. So your real problem is that the government offers a service? So we should get rid of public fire departments, police, schools, and roads?
      - jhugo 5y ago
        Strange that you would twist my words that way. I don't advocate for getting rid of services that the government provides, nor do I have a problem with them offering a service in general. I do think that if you take an existing market with competition, and you nationalise one or more actors in that market, competition becomes very difficult for any remaining private actors in that market or any future entrants. The reason is pretty simple: the rule-setting body is now playing the game against you. The end result of this is that new actors are less likely to enter the market at all, which limits innovation. Because of this (and because of the historical record of failure almost every time this kind of thing is tried) the decision to nationalise should be taken very carefully. You list several things such as fire departments and roads which are arguably best provided by the government, but I don't think it's obvious that retail financial services should be added to that list.
        rkk3 5y ago
dageshi 5y ago
If you're an entrepreneur why would you attempt anything in any industry likely to be nationalised?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Why wouldn’t you? Nationalization does not imply profit is impossible. Not to mention the purpose of the government is to serve its citizens, not just entrepreneurs.
  - dageshi 5y ago
    Probably because raising money would be harder, would investors or venture firms weigh projects in industries likely to be nationalised lower? Probably. Any industry likely to be nationalised would have an overall depressive effect on the number of risks taken on new products and services in that industry.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Yes, which is why I mentioned in my original comment that only services that are a “drain on the economy” should be nationalized.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  This assumes the ambitious are driven purely by explosive profit potential. Counterexamples are abound.

jhugo 5y ago

> From your comment it sounds like nationalizing something is bad because the entrepreneurs won't make money? Nationalizing something is bad because the next entrepreneurs in that field know they won't make money, so they won't build.

endisneigh 5y ago
I’m not following. My original comment called for the nationalization of things that drain the entire economy. This implies said companies have already “won,” and that they’ve made (a lot of) money. Your comment would make more sense if I was calling for the transitioning to communism. Uber, for example wouldn’t be nationalized because its product type hasn’t become so pervasive that a majority of Americans use it. Debit cards and their ilk have.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I believe a lot of times in the US, those companies become public utilities [0], which are publicly owned through stock (or privately owned)[1] but are highly regulated by the government and also I think exempt from laws prohibiting monopolies[2]. I'm not sure what's the process of a company going from a regular public company to a public utility though. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility [1]: https://marketrealist.com/p/are-utility-companies-public-or-private/ https://marketrealist.com/p/are-utility-companies-public-or-... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility
- rkk3 5y ago
  > the nationalization of things that drain the entire economy. Not sure how you would draw this line. Do we nationalize the apple/google app stores because they are taking 30% cuts? Or Visa/Mastercard/Stripe because they take a cut on every transaction?
rkk3 5y ago
> Nationalizing something is bad because the next entrepreneurs in that field know they won't make money, so they won't build. There is noting implicit that means they don't make money. The process of nationalization doesn't have to result in 0 compensation, it could be run like any other buyout. That being said being government run has its own issues.
- jhugo 5y ago
  The "buyout" is for the companies that were nationalised. But the next entrepreneurs in the field have to compete with the government.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    > the next entrepreneurs in the field have to compete with the government. So your real problem is that the government offers a service? So we should get rid of public fire departments, police, schools, and roads?
    - jhugo 5y ago
      Strange that you would twist my words that way. I don't advocate for getting rid of services that the government provides, nor do I have a problem with them offering a service in general. I do think that if you take an existing market with competition, and you nationalise one or more actors in that market, competition becomes very difficult for any remaining private actors in that market or any future entrants. The reason is pretty simple: the rule-setting body is now playing the game against you. The end result of this is that new actors are less likely to enter the market at all, which limits innovation. Because of this (and because of the historical record of failure almost every time this kind of thing is tried) the decision to nationalise should be taken very carefully. You list several things such as fire departments and roads which are arguably best provided by the government, but I don't think it's obvious that retail financial services should be added to that list.
      - rkk3 5y ago

dageshi 5y ago

If you're an entrepreneur why would you attempt anything in any industry likely to be nationalised?

endisneigh 5y ago
Why wouldn’t you? Nationalization does not imply profit is impossible. Not to mention the purpose of the government is to serve its citizens, not just entrepreneurs.
- dageshi 5y ago
  Probably because raising money would be harder, would investors or venture firms weigh projects in industries likely to be nationalised lower? Probably. Any industry likely to be nationalised would have an overall depressive effect on the number of risks taken on new products and services in that industry.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Yes, which is why I mentioned in my original comment that only services that are a “drain on the economy” should be nationalized.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
This assumes the ambitious are driven purely by explosive profit potential. Counterexamples are abound.