4 ms·

> 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 me

by 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 rkk3 5y ago

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.