4 ms·

> From your comment it sounds like nationalizing something is bad because the entrepreneurs won't make money? Nationalizing something is bad because the next e

by 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
        > I don't think it's obvious that retail financial services should be added to that list. Neither do I especially, I was only questioning your reasoning for opposing it.

by jhugo 5y ago

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
      > I don't think it's obvious that retail financial services should be added to that list. Neither do I especially, I was only questioning your reasoning for opposing it.