Government owned corps means that politics gets involved in the management of the corp which leads to inefficiencies. Ideas that sound politically popular (while not necessarily being logical) get executed over ideas that are logical.
But to this I argue, we already exist in a system where the state exists. If a state can regulate a market, it already means that it can regulate corporations by passing whatever laws it wants. Meaning, legally speaking, a state doesn’t even need to own a corporation to execute its will.
Let’s look at a scenario. Lewis comes to power. The rail companies aren’t owned by the government. However, Lewis knows he’ll get more votes if all rail workers get a raise of 20%. Hence, Lewis’s NDP passes a new piece of legislation WITHOUT even owning the rail companies called “Critical infrastructure labor investment plan”. Basically, it mandates rail workers among others a minimum wage 1.2x that of the federal minimum wage.
As long as the state exists, and as long as it is popular, it still can kinda do whatever it wants in this context.
Hence, while your argument isn’t wrong per say, the dangers it points at already exist. The fact that something like this isn’t happening in the market is evidence enough, isn’t it?
So you argue:
But to this I argue, we already exist in a system where the state exists. If a state can regulate a market, it already means that it can regulate corporations by passing whatever laws it wants. Meaning, legally speaking, a state doesn’t even need to own a corporation to execute its will.
Let’s look at a scenario. Lewis comes to power. The rail companies aren’t owned by the government. However, Lewis knows he’ll get more votes if all rail workers get a raise of 20%. Hence, Lewis’s NDP passes a new piece of legislation WITHOUT even owning the rail companies called “Critical infrastructure labor investment plan”. Basically, it mandates rail workers among others a minimum wage 1.2x that of the federal minimum wage.
As long as the state exists, and as long as it is popular, it still can kinda do whatever it wants in this context.
Hence, while your argument isn’t wrong per say, the dangers it points at already exist. The fact that something like this isn’t happening in the market is evidence enough, isn’t it?