I am thinking of starting a political party and one of my policies is to nationalise certain industries (I will go into the criteria later).

The way I see, as technology advances and becomes more complicated, it also gets increasingly expensive. As such, means of production now requires money that very few individuals have. The consequence of this is that only corporations with their huge sums of money, or a group of people (read, no longer individuals) can afford machineries and the facilities to manufacture things. I believe this is bad for many reasons. For one thing, power, and the influence that comes with it, is now centralised in a few hands. Which I believe to be self-evidently bad. Secondly, it is now almost entirely impossible for small people like you and me, in other words the individuals to start up any sort of manufacturing-based business (I am not taking into account service industries because I believe they are not as important to the success of a country. More on this later) in any meaningful way, and this is bad because people want a sense of ownership, they want autonomy. They want the satisfaction of knowing their labour produces actual tangible things that contribute to the society. But now they don't have this anymore, because they simply do not possess the financial resources to start any sort of meaningful businesses. My solution? Let the government be in charge of these industries and masses can be the investors. People can now directly own the industries and have a say in how to run them (by electing the government officials). This should also give them a sense of ownership, which I believe to be important. I want people to be happy.

Do you think these two reasons are reason enough to justify nationalisation?

Kind of sounds a little like socialism....but I see the logic in it. See in theory this can actually work but its a whole different story when you place it in reality. The reality of your solution is that your basically taking the power away from a few individuals (Corporate heads) and giving that power to a whole new set of individuals (the government). If you look back at history no matter who is controlling something if it is one entity it creates an imbalance of power. This is the reason why we have this system of checks in balances in our own government to spread the power. This is also why we have state government and national government. But as you can observe from recent events such as the billion dollar bailout plan, to the declaration of the War in Iraq, to vietnam, to the war on drugs and so on you see our own federal government, which you propose to give all of this power to, figuring out loopholes to get around just about everything. Essentially when you look at the big picture of things the problem really isn't exclusive to corporations but rather this new phenomenon we are experiencing, which is a fused hybrid between corporate interests and government involvement. Its called Corporateocracy. So by nationalizing corporations your basically doing nothing since Government and Corporations work in this symbiotic relationship. The Government is simply going prioritize itself with whoever has the most money. If you really want to get things done then you need to put a new government body in charge who has little or no affiliation with corporations. That doesn't mean bloody revolution but rather use the already existing system to try and replace them with other officials who actually want to get things done rather than keep it the way it is.

(After writing this I just realized you're probably not from America, but the idea is still the same in almost every developed nation. Just disregard the notions about America.)

Kind of sounds a little like socialism....

Firstly thank you for reading and responding to my post. Secondly, yes, nationalistion is a one of the features of socialism, and yes, I am a socialist.


but I see the logic in it. See in theory this can actually work but its a whole different story when you place it in reality. The reality of your solution is that your basically taking the power away from a few individuals (Corporate heads) and giving that power to a whole new set of individuals (the government).

I agree. However, the latter (giving power to the government) is superior to the former (giving it to corporations) because government officials are supposed to be accountable to the public. And in theory if they are doing a bad job we the citizens can do something about it by say, electing another set of people in. But with PRIVATE corporations we are absolutely powerless. So what I am saying is, it's not the ideal solution, but it's better than what we currently have.


If you look back at history no matter who is controlling something if it is one entity it creates an imbalance of power.

Yes you are right. However, I believe that with my party (more on this later), there will be much checks and balances in place such that an imbalance of power will be minimalised.

For example, with my party the government will be legally and morally obligated to provide campaign money to new, starting political parties (that can reasonably demonstrate that they have public support). This ensure political diversity and less chance of power centralisation in the reigning government/party.


This is the reason why we have this system of checks in balances in our own government to spread the power. This is also why we have state government and national government.

Which I think are brilliant.

I love the idea of more equal distribution of power, and it is not my aim to centralise power in my plan of nationalising, I just want to take power away from priviate companies, is all.



But as you can observe from recent events such as the billion dollar bailout plan, to the declaration of the War in Iraq, to vietnam, to the war on drugs and so on you see our own federal government, which you propose to give all of this power to, figuring out loopholes to get around just about everything. Essentially when you look at the big picture of things the problem really isn't exclusive to corporations but rather this new phenomenon we are experiencing, which is a fused hybrid between corporate interests and government involvement. Its called Corporateocracy. So by nationalizing corporations your basically doing nothing since Government and Corporations work in this symbiotic relationship.

I absolutely agree with you. The entire system is severely flawed and I believe both the government and the corporations should be changed. Which is why I am starting a new political party.


The Government is simply going prioritize itself with whoever has the most money.

True. However, if you take corporations' ill-gotten gains (some of them, anyway) and spread them among the people, now the people have the most money. ANd now the government have to pander to THEM.



If you really want to get things done then you need to put a new government body in charge who has little or no affiliation with corporations.

This is what I am planning to do with my new party. If you would like I will link you once my website is up.


That doesn't mean bloody revolution but rather use the already existing system to try and replace them with other officials who actually want to get things done rather than keep it the way it is.

(After writing this I just realized you're probably not from America, but the idea is still the same in almost every developed nation. Just disregard the notions about America.)

Yes, I am actually Canadian. But I believe my ideas are universally applicable.

Also, just to add kudos to you, it is rare that I see an American that doesn't instantly go berserk at the merest suggestion of a socialist state/policy.

I'm in a hurry but all I'll say for now is: here in the US the government has given billions to the airline industry. Recently they gave 25 billion to GM and Ford. And the banks? Yeah we all know the bank story. If corps are "too big fail" then they definitely need to be broken up. So how does our government decide to remedy the situation? Letting them merge and centralize even more.

I think it's absurd to think of money as just bio-survival tickets that one accumulates and thats what irks me of libertarians and believers in government-free society. The power that these tickets hold when you have too many of them eliminates competition and can control the flow of information. It gives people too much control over others. Imagine a world with no overtime pay increase, no minimum wage, no medical benefits, and even things like company scrip? OH wait, we already saw that. That's why I don't have faith in the government-free or libertarian concept of people boycotting corporations that engage in unethical practices. Humans are hundreds of years away from being able to handle the objective, rational, morality that allows them to live free of regulation and government.

Also, just to add kudos to you, it is rare that I see an American that doesn't instantly go berserk at the merest suggestion of a socialist state/policy.

America is the land of knee-jerking. Communism, socialism, and anarchy have such horrible gut reactions in people that it's hard to discuss them at a deep level. It's too textbookish. communism is the stuff of mao tse dung and anarchy is the stuff of ted turner. Put the two in the same sentence and it perplexes the shit out of people. "What? Arent they completely opposite you fucking dumbass!" That's why Americans have blind faith in a system that continually fucks them over, they doublethink into voting against their interests. One of the 40 million without health insurance? They think they'll get rich next year. All they have to do is work hard. Lol.

One of your main arguments against big industry is the centralization of it in the hands of a few people; what types of "checks and balances" do you plan on providing?

One of your main arguments against big industry is the centralization of it in the hands of a few people; what types of "checks and balances" do you plan on providing?

I am glad you asked.

One of the checks and balances I have in mind is, like I stated a few posts above, that the it is the government's LEGAL obligation to provide campaign aid to new, starting political parties that have proven themselves to have public support (this is to prevent lone loonies from getting government money in stupid nonsensical parties that are of no real value to the public). They are also legally required to provide air time on the state-run TV station to opposing political parties. This I believe will serve to give some sort of power to the citizens, in the sense that if they don't like what the current/my party is doing, they are guanranteed some sort of political means to change the government.

Of course, this is just one of many possible ways to decentralize power. Keep in mind that my party is still in the conception stage and I still have a lot of thinking/planning to do, so I might add more things later on.

Yeah, because historically, government run industries have been paragons of of efficiency.

There aren't any industries that are *too big to fail* in the long term.
Government subsidies to industries in absence of externalities or other real reasons to justify them simply miss-allocate resources, not only wasting tax dollars, stopping capital and labor resources from ending up where they'll be used most efficiently.

As an alternative, what if we had a system where the government was granted non transferable, non voting equity stakes in corporations as an alternative to corporate tax?
Surely it would distort incentives less, particularly given the tax advantages of debt financing as opposed to equity that exist at the moment. (interest payments are tax deductible)

What's better then that though is that by taxing profits rather then revenue, many previously uneconomical ventures may in fact become feasible.

There is of course the issue that many companies don't pay large amounts of their income in dividends, so replacing that government revenue could be a problem, though setting compulsory levels of dividends would be an option.
(the experience in countries with dividend imputation for personal tax systems shows that companies can sustainably be paying 50% of their profits out as dividends, so it probably isn't a big problem)

I am glad you asked.

One of the checks and balances I have in mind is, like I stated a few posts above, that the it is the government's LEGAL obligation to provide campaign aid to new, starting political parties that have proven themselves to have public support (this is to prevent lone loonies from getting government money in stupid nonsensical parties that are of no real value to the public). They are also legally required to provide air time on the state-run TV station to opposing political parties. This I believe will serve to give some sort of power to the citizens, in the sense that if they don't like what the current/my party is doing, they are guanranteed some sort of political means to change the government.

Of course, this is just one of many possible ways to decentralize power. Keep in mind that my party is still in the conception stage and I still have a lot of thinking/planning to do, so I might add more things later on.

Israeli political parties get free airtime, fyi.

Dress up as chairman mao to rally public spirit.

Yeah, because historically, government run industries have been paragons of of efficiency.

You know, I hear a lot of people say this, that state-run industries are not efficient, or not competitive enough or they become stale...etc. But has anybody actually been able to demonstrate this?

Note that this will be particularly difficult to do, as there are no objective criteria that exist to measure things like "efficiency", "competitiveness", or "staleness".


There aren't any industries that are *too big to fail* in the long term.
Government subsidies to industries in absence of externalities or other real reasons to justify them simply miss-allocate resources, not only wasting tax dollars, stopping capital and labor resources from ending up where they'll be used most efficiently.

What is meant by externalities? Also, what is "justify them simply miss-allocate resources"? You realise that you made a grammar mistake, right? Also, how does all this (which I am not even sure what you are referring to) stop capital and resources from going to where they will be used efficiently?

You know, I hear a lot of people say this, that state-run industries are not efficient, or not competitive enough or they become stale...etc. But has anybody actually been able to demonstrate this?

Note that this will be particularly difficult to do, as there are no objective criteria that exist to measure things like "efficiency", "competitiveness", or "staleness".


You can measure the dead weight loss due say, the introduction of a tax or subsidy.
It's quite possible to at least estimate the inefficiency of a given policy.
The big issue with planned economies is that without competitive markets and the prices that they determine, there's no effective way to determine the best use of resources. This isn't referring to the *stupid* things that the soviet union did, like building factories in the middle of nowhere because they could, but rather decisions like: should we mine coal or iron? without prices determined by the supply and demand to make one enterprise more profitable then the other, the situation becomes ridiculous.
Yes it's possible to come to an answer in any given case, but the entire exercise insane, it's a waste of time and effort.

Aside from that problem - how effective have government officials been at running things recently?
why on earth would you want put more resources under their control? I mean... what's the deficit now?

There is of course a difference between a planned economy and state run industries in a market economy.
Given your criteria however it seem that we'd be effectively talking about the former.



What is meant by externalities? Also, what is "justify them simply miss-allocate resources"? You realise that you made a grammar mistake, right? Also, how does all this (which I am not even sure what you are referring to) stop capital and resources from going to where they will be used efficiently?
I said:
Government subsidies to industries in absence of externalities or other real reasons to justify them simply miss-allocate resources.

"them" being the subsidies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities

it makes sense to subsidize some things, such as education, since there are positive externalities involved, and to tax other things specifically such as polluting industry, because there are negative externalities.

subsidizing car manufacturers because it's politically expedient however is generally a bad idea, if cars can't be produced in America without subsidies then subsidizing it is taking labor and capital away from activities which WOULD occur without subsidies.

I'm not sure about the specifics, but I agree that certain corporations should answer to the government (those dealing with food production and gasoline for example). With a few exceptions, they should also be required to be financially self sufficient.

Also, why do you think it would make sense to pursue this with a new party? To make sweeping changes like that on the national level you'll need a huge number of people behind the idea. Probably would be a lot more effective to work through the democratic party (or their equivalent in whatever country) for this one. Since they're already essentially pro corporate regulation.