3 ms·
The answer to these corporate threats is and should always be nationalisation. Not the threat of nationalisation, just immediate aquisition by the state.
by closewith 2y ago
The answer to these corporate threats is and should always be nationalisation. Not the threat of nationalisation, just immediate aquisition by the state.
- isoprophlex 2y ago... and letting them sell to China, if only to piss off the White House
- buckle8017 2y ago[flagged]
- closewith 2y agoThe people working there generally enjoy their lives in Europe and generally aren't looking to move - that's to appease shareholders. > What's next slavery for key industries? Corporate slavery is fine by me. Corporate entities have no inherent rights and trying to evoke the enormous human misery of real slavery to shut down calls for corporate regulation is both transparently disingenuous and morally reprehensible.
- yoyohello13 2y agoThe human beings doing actual work will still be paid. Just the shareholders lose out.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deadbabe 2y agoThe answer to such attempts at nationalisation is poison pill clauses.
- amelius 2y agoI bet most companies can survive a management self-destruct. (Also, while a poison pill threat can be a good management decision, taking the poison pill is a seriously bad management decision. So a government can just bet on that.)
- nand_gate 2y agoWould actually help most places than hinder, I think.
- atemerev 2y ago"most companies can survive a management self-destruct" — if it is an oil extraction company, maybe. Otherwise, knowledge and processes can be easily destroyed for good.
- deadbabe 2y agoIf the company can survive then it just means you need to make the poison pill stronger.
- closewith 2y agoI suggest you read the EU Takeover Directive and the associated transposition into NL law. Such shareholder rights plans aren't commonly legal outside the US.
- Thorrez 2y agoSo, like China, where the state takes over whatever company it feels like?
- wslh 2y agoIt seems the narratives against China (or Russia) are starting to dilute. Beyond left and right, it's really about realpolitik, power and its desires. When you're at the top and not fighting for survival, you have the luxury to construct whatever narrative suits your position.
- closewith 2y agoYes, where appropriate.
- gessha 2y agoI would understand if you’re suggesting this for resource extraction companies (even if I don’t agree with the idea) but how does it work for companies with a lot of intellectual property and know how? If the people want to leave, how are you going to stop them? Authoritarianism? Bring back the worst from the last century and run it back?
- closewith 2y agoThe people don't want to leave. Even if the company moves, most of the people won't. This is a paper exercise that can be resolved once and for all with paper regulations.
- KronisLV 2y agoIt probably needs a long hard look at the consequences of such decisions in the long term. On one hand, it’s authoritarian, on the other hand not doing that might lead to fairly critical businesses becoming unaligned with the interests of the country, or leaving outright. > What troubles him more is geopolitics. The pressure on asml began to build in 2019, when the Dutch government, at America’s urging, barred the company from exporting its advanced euv machines to China. On the other hand, this position is understandable and it makes me wonder why the Dutch would do this and keep such limitations in place - especially after seeing how clearly hateful the current US administration is towards the EU. The EU should look towards ensuring its own prosperity and that includes the interests and the future of the companies within it. That's a common sense take in my eyes.
- jimbohn 2y agoI am not sure I agree with your take, but one of our era's big questions is whether the economy and/or big enough businesses/industries should be above politics (and the law?). I see the USA and China as extremes in this regard. We shall see.
- casenmgreen 2y agoHistorically, State-run companies perform badly, for themselves and also for the economy and market as a whole. It seems this is because of the implicit State guarantee, and political entanglement and intervention.
- closewith 2y agoThat's an assertion, not fact. Certainly, privatisation of state companies across the EU has been a disaster and no efficiency has been gained, so I wonder where the historical record you're reading is?
- bgnn 2y agoWorst is the privatized abd heavily subsidized public transport companies.