Am 05.01.2012 15:50, schrieb bob:
On 2 Jan., 13:04, Lüko wrote:
Am 01.01.2012 23:27, schrieb Neil Williams:

If it's owned by the Government it's nationalised, whatever means that
ownership may take, IMO.

you have a strange concept of "nationalization"

It's the one that agrees with my dictionary (and wikipedia).

Throw the dictionary away. Did you write this Wikipedia article
yourself?

You know about Citogenesis? Look he http://xkcd.com/978/

Do you really believe that the composition of the shareholders makes
a qualitative difference for the commercial activity of a company?

Absolutely it does.

I'm sorry for you.

There are reams and reams of laws governing the
relationships between parent companies and subsidiaries, and the stake
one company can hold in another before it is deemed to be a subsidiary

which does not mean that the owning company does exert any influence
on the activities of the management of the company.

At which percentage of ownership by a state entity does a company
stop being "really a commercial operator"?

50% +1 share.

Didn't you say 30% before? Or was that somebody else? Those marks are
really very arbitrary, don't you think so? Too arbitrary to be a
scientific fact.

At that point the government shareholding is a
controlling interest, and the private shareholders combined can not
vote down any measure imposed by the controlling shareholder.

At Deutsche Bahn AG, the Federal Republic of Germany may not have
more than 3 seats out of 20 on the supervisory board. Can those three
really make a majority of 20?

Do you really believe this idiotic nonsense?

The courts and parliament do.

What about the Rothaus brewery, just to cite one little example?

Definitely.

Commerzbank?

Northern Rock? RBS? Yes to all of them.

And now Northern Rock does freely give credits for the lowest
interest rates, undercutting all other banks? Do you really believe this
bull****? Come down on earth!

Life does not stick to your rigid ideas!


L.W.