Am 05.01.2012 15:46, schrieb Graham Nye:
Right of centre states aren't likely, by their own principles, to
retain profitable enterprises under state control. Can you give
some examples of capitalist states operating profitable enterprises?

Germany, France, United States, certainly many many others.

What is a "Right of centre state"? Poland? Belarus?


L.W.

Am 06.01.2012 14:09, schrieb The Real Doctor:
And last I heard was managed by First group which is nothing to do with
Stagecoach.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Lüko's mistake, and I feel a bit silly for not
having spotted it.

but this error is not substantial to the issue under discussion.


L.W.

Am 05.01.2012 16:04, schrieb Neil Williams:
It is an interesting speculative exercise to try and guess what might
have happened had BR been successfully privatised as one single
integrated company, as happened with some of the early privatised
utilities (eg, British Gas). It might well have been a great success,
just as many of the early privatisations have been (eg, BT, BA, BG).

I imagine it may have acted in many ways similarly to DB AG, which
operates in a far more politically-unencumbered way than BR ever did,
regardless of who happens to own it.

The thatcherite ideology that no possibilty to make a profit may be
barred to all those bloodsuckers around to enrich themselves at the cost
of all caused them to created relatively small companies which are very
small compared to the big "players" on the continent like SNCF, DB, or
Trenitalia.


Cheers,
L.W.

Am 05.01.2012 18:56, schrieb Arthur Figgis:
if the owner is the state, the thing is state owned.

and if the horse is black, it is not white.

But that does not preclude in any way that this thing is a
"commercial company".


L.W.

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.

Am 05.01.2012 15:52, schrieb The Real Doctor:

Again slandering and avoiding the subject under discussion:

Says the man who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being a Hitler
apologist

No. You just show again that you are a habitual liar.

You introduced the Third Reich, the Falklands and so on as topics.

No, why should I? At most I gave you a catchword so that you would
show your allegeance to colonialism (see above quoted line showing your
insult to Argentina.

It seems that you see this as the usual show trial scene for you?

No, I'm wholly opposed to show trials

But you try again and again to mount a show trial. But your victim is
not at your disposal.

------ quote ---------
I just pointed out the fact that Herr Schnell is upset about the Berlin
railway workers still enjoying labor standards which they had acquired
during GDR times.
--------- unquote --------

You claim that the subway workers ought to be happy with ("enjoying" is
the key word) DDR labour standards. I'm still not clear whether you
think that should enjoy shooting them if they want to move west.

Again, who in above sentence is said to be upset?

I didn't make any claims about anyone being upset. What I wrote was "And
there you go, judging what people should or should not be happy with." I
was referring to the railway workers.

But you do not address the person who is making that claim, which is
Herr Schnell, your cothinker. Instead you do nothing but trying to mount
a show trial in the best tradition of Stalin.

Just sucking accusations out of your finger, and putting up
"questions" like "When did you stop to beat your wife?!".

You are disgusting.

L.W.

Am 05.01.2012 15:57, schrieb Graham Nye:
So thread drift is only a problem for you on selected occasions?

I certainly reject any effort to mount a show trial. I am not ready
to stand as victim for "questions" like "When did you stop to beat your
wife?!".

And George Orwell is one of my preferred writers, and the 1st of the
English writers of the 20th century. So I can rarely resist to defend
him against the vile attacks from various political quarters.



L.W.

Am 05.01.2012 22:15, schrieb Wolfgang Schwanke:
It confirmed what I thought, but not your claim that West Germany asked
for controls at the Berlin wall I'm afraid.

Well, the GDR did control at the GDR/Westberlin and GDR/FRG borders,
but Bonn wanted the GDR to close the last hole in the Berlin Wall. They
wanted the GDR to akt as an auxiliary police force for Westberlin and
the FRG, preventing everyone from leaving the GDR who had not the
necessary visa for entering Westberlin or the FRG.

That is a historical fact.

I know that it does not conform to the thought control of the
government-official historical lies, but facts are stubborn things. They
might hurt when one tries to ignore them.



Cheers,
L.W.

Am 05.01.2012 22:15, schrieb Wolfgang Schwanke:
saying that the West German government were hypocrites because
they demanded free travel only as long as it suited them.

But that is true.

Why do you think that many people are currently in German prisons for
the only "crime" of being in the country?

He would have a point if he'd got his facts right, unfortunately he doesn't.

The facts do not conform with the historical fiction of the FRG. But
that is not a problem for the facts, but for the "official" government
controlled history writing.

The west never acted the way he pretends.

Of course, you must pretend not to have noted the obvious.

Poor fella.


L.W.

Am 06.01.2012 18:51, schrieb Wolfgang Schwanke:
the border towards East Berlin was not
an international border, but merely a sector boundary within the joint
occupation zone of Berlin.


in your fictional thinking.

But reality was different.