3 ms·

That’s a break-up, not nationalization.

ceejayoz 2y ago
The parent poster said: > Nationalize Boeing, split it up, turn the pieces into work-owned and controlled co-ops. Bell didn't turn into co-ops, but otherwise that's the same play. A forcible breakup by the government is fundamentally a nationalization, even if it's just for an instant.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > forcible breakup by the government is fundamentally a nationalization, even if it's just for an instant The government never took any ownership interest in AT&T. You may be thinking of the auto bailouts.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    You may be thinking of socialism. Nationalization can be involve control instead of ownership. If the President orders Google to switch all efforts to producing nuclear bombs, Google has been nationalized, even if they've still got private shareholders. Socialism will necessarily involve nationalization. Nationalization doesn't necessarily require a socialist ownership structure for the nationalized asset.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > may be thinking of socialism This makes no sense on multiple levels. Socialisation is a system, nationalisation an act. > Nationalization can be involve control instead of ownership There are zero legal scholars or historians who consider break-up orders nationalisation. Because at that point, every merger denial or FDA approval is also nationalisation.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Socialisation is a system, nationalisation an act. Socialism, the system, requires widespread nationalization in the form of both control and ownership of assets. > There are zero legal scholars or historians who consider break-up orders nationalisation. Again, nationalization is taking state ownership or control. A forcible government breakup of an organization is clear state control of it, albeit for a brief period. Thought experiment: Venezuela, instead of outright confiscation, chooses instead to leave shareholders in possession of their shares in oil production. They install state-selected management and impose a 100% tax on profits. Is this nationalization?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > forcible government breakup of an organization is clear state control of it You’re defining control in a way that extends to all regulation. The AT&T break-up has been heavily cited and written about. Do you have a single expert who agrees with your claim that it constituted nationalisation? (Let’s even assume AT&T was actually ordered to break up, versus voluntarily doing so to settle a lawsuit.) > instead of outright confiscation, chooses instead to leave shareholders in possession of their shares in oil production. They install state-selected management and impose a 100% tax on profits. Now remove the confiscation of profits and selection of state-selected management.

The parent poster said: > Nationalize Boeing, split it up, turn the pieces into work-owned and controlled co-ops. Bell didn't turn into co-ops, but otherwise that's the same play. A forcible breakup by the government is fundamentally a nationalization, even if it's just for an instant.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> forcible breakup by the government is fundamentally a nationalization, even if it's just for an instant The government never took any ownership interest in AT&T. You may be thinking of the auto bailouts.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  You may be thinking of socialism. Nationalization can be involve control instead of ownership. If the President orders Google to switch all efforts to producing nuclear bombs, Google has been nationalized, even if they've still got private shareholders. Socialism will necessarily involve nationalization. Nationalization doesn't necessarily require a socialist ownership structure for the nationalized asset.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > may be thinking of socialism This makes no sense on multiple levels. Socialisation is a system, nationalisation an act. > Nationalization can be involve control instead of ownership There are zero legal scholars or historians who consider break-up orders nationalisation. Because at that point, every merger denial or FDA approval is also nationalisation.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > Socialisation is a system, nationalisation an act. Socialism, the system, requires widespread nationalization in the form of both control and ownership of assets. > There are zero legal scholars or historians who consider break-up orders nationalisation. Again, nationalization is taking state ownership or control. A forcible government breakup of an organization is clear state control of it, albeit for a brief period. Thought experiment: Venezuela, instead of outright confiscation, chooses instead to leave shareholders in possession of their shares in oil production. They install state-selected management and impose a 100% tax on profits. Is this nationalization?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > forcible government breakup of an organization is clear state control of it You’re defining control in a way that extends to all regulation. The AT&T break-up has been heavily cited and written about. Do you have a single expert who agrees with your claim that it constituted nationalisation? (Let’s even assume AT&T was actually ordered to break up, versus voluntarily doing so to settle a lawsuit.) > instead of outright confiscation, chooses instead to leave shareholders in possession of their shares in oil production. They install state-selected management and impose a 100% tax on profits. Now remove the confiscation of profits and selection of state-selected management.