Posted by
Nerdus Maximus on Monday, November 17, 2008 12:35:21 PM
One of the issues brought up by the various bailout plans is whether government ownership of stock constitutes "socialism". The definition my teachers always used was the the government ownership of the means of production was the defining characteristic of Socialism. many Conservatives are concerned that the government buying stakes in various businesses in the process of bailing out industries moves us towards that classic definition of Socialism. Many of these same Conservatives supported that government ownership when it came to getting them a better return on their Social Security money. This surface inconsistency brings out what I think is the real problem with Socialism.
Overall, it is a good thing if the government owns stock in businesses. There would be a lot less ill-advised anti-business legislation if the resulting drop is stock values and dividends hurt the politicians who made the laws. The problem is when government tries to run businesses. A sure way to drive businesses to ruin is to let the same people who run the government influence the running of the business. There is a way we can have the positives of government investment without the drawbacks of having government influence the running of businesses.
What we need is a class of stock with no voting rights that is the only kind of stock ANY government is allowed to buy in U.S. companies. This includes the U.S. government and any foreign government or sovereign wealth fund.