Am 02.01.2012 23:50, schrieb Recliner:
Only when the government level of
shareholding falls below 30% can it be regarded as anything other than a
nationalised company.

Whatever you may want to make up.

But reality doesn't care about your laughing stock schemata.

Do you also care about the color of the skin of the shareholdes,
their religion, their sexual orientation, their preferred sports?


L.W.

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:57:47 +0100 [UTC], Lüko Willms wrote:
Am 02.01.2012 23:50, schrieb Recliner:

Only when the government level of
shareholding falls below 30% can it be regarded as anything other than a
nationalised company.

Whatever you may want to make up. [snip]

Why do you resort to accusing people with whom you disagree of "making
things up", Lüko, and why do you _always_ launch personal attacks on
them?

It doesn't exactly add any strength to your arguments, y'know; quite
the opposite.
--
Ross

Speaking for me, myself and I. Nobody else
- unless I make it clear that I am...

Am 03.01.2012 02:19, schrieb Ross:
Why do you resort to accusing people with whom you disagree of "making
things up", Lüko, and why do you_always_ launch personal attacks on
them?

isn't it ridiculous to claim that the nature of a company stops being
a "real commercial company" when the composition of her shareholders
changes?


L.W.

"Lüko Willms" wrote in message

Am 03.01.2012 02:19, schrieb Ross:
Why do you resort to accusing people with whom you disagree of
"making things up", Lüko, and why do you_always_ launch personal
attacks on them?

isn't it ridiculous to claim that the nature of a company stops
being a "real commercial company" when the composition of her
shareholders changes?

Not at all. If a company is dominated by one single shareholder, and
that shareholder has other interests, then you have a potential conflict
of interest. It's why monopolies are restricted in the EU and other free
capitalist countries. In Britain, the Competition Commission has to
approve takeovers if there would be a restriction of competition, and if
a single shareholder (or connected group) wish to acquire 30% or more of
a public company, they must make an offer for the whole company, as it
would otherwise disadvantage unconnected shareholders (and may be
blocked if there would be an unacceptable loss of competition).

Of course, socialist countries used to believe in state monopolies as a
matter of principle. I'm not sure if many truly socialist countries
still remain, however. Certainly, countries like China and Vietnam are
no longer socialist, though Cuba and North Korea perhaps still are. Is
it their system that you advocate? Do you think workers' rights are
better protected in North than in South Korea?

Am 03.01.2012 14:33, schrieb Recliner:
isn't it ridiculous to claim that the nature of a company stops
being a "real commercial company" when the composition of her
shareholders changes?

Not at all. If a company is dominated by one single shareholder, and
that shareholder has other interests, then you have a potential conflict
of interest. It's why monopolies are restricted in the EU and other

What do you to about the monopolies of the little bakery or
agriculturer which has only one single owner? A horrible sight, or what?


Cheers,
L.W.

"Lüko Willms" wrote in message

Am 03.01.2012 14:33, schrieb Recliner:
isn't it ridiculous to claim that the nature of a company stops
being a "real commercial company" when the composition of her
shareholders changes?

Not at all. If a company is dominated by one single shareholder, and
that shareholder has other interests, then you have a potential
conflict of interest. It's why monopolies are restricted in the EU
and other

What do you to about the monopolies of the little bakery or
agriculturer which has only one single owner? A horrible sight, or
what?

It's not a monopoly if there's other bakers or farmers. Ownership
doesn't make it a monopoly: lack of competition does. For example, if a
small, private bakery produces poor quality or over-priced products, it
would soon lose business to others in the area and may go bust -- unless
it's a state monopoly, with no competition allowed. Equally, if it
treated its staff badly, they'd soon leave and go to work elsewhere.
That's why competitive businesses tend to deliver a better service to
customers and treat staff better than state monopolies.

Am 03.01.2012 14:58, schrieb Recliner:


What do you to about the monopolies of the little bakery or
agriculturer which has only one single owner? A horrible sight, or
what?

It's not a monopoly if there's other bakers or farmers. Ownership
doesn't make it a monopoly:

YOU wrote this:

If a company is dominated by one single shareholder, and
that shareholder has other interests, then you have a potential
conflict of interest. It's why monopolies are restricted in the
EU and other

It's OK that you do not want to defend that, but you can't deny that
you wrote this.


Cheers,
L.W.

On 03/01/2012 13:16, Lüko Willms wrote:

isn't it ridiculous to claim that the nature of a company stops being
a "real commercial company" when the composition of her shareholders
changes?

No. If a company is owned by, say, a national government which runs the
company with some objective other than making a commercial return then
the "company stops being a "real commercial company"".

HTH


--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

Am 03.01.2012 19:43, schrieb Graham Nye:
On 03/01/2012 13:16, Lüko Willms wrote:

isn't it ridiculous to claim that the nature of a company stops being
a "real commercial company" when the composition of her shareholders
changes?
No. If a company is owned by, say, a national government which runs the
company with some objective other than making a commercial return then
the "company stops being a "real commercial company"".

This is a new, and welcome turn of your stance. The correct phrase
ist "with some objective other than making a commercial return", i.e.
profit.

But this does not have anything to do with the ownership. It might
have to do with which class is holding state power.

Under capitalist rule, you will find that most state owned
enterprises are actually operated with the objective to make profit.

That is what makes a distinction, not the shareholder.

L.W.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:01:14 +0100, Lüko
wrote:
That is what makes a distinction, not the shareholder.

No. Both do.

In terms of holding, a company can be private (of which
government-owned or nationalised is one type) or public.

What a company's motivation is, while usually primarily profit, can
vary hugely based on shareholders' wishes.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK