- May 1, 2016
- AFL Club
I quite agree that it has the potential to be difficult, but difficulty does not make something not worthwhile.Forced nationalisation via hostile takeover?
This would need to happen after a company has floated on the market and the process for considering that company for government takeover will need to be transparent otherwise it's a monstrous avenue for corruption.
See politicans selling their shares right before the covid crash after briefing and others buying bulk tesla shares before the executive order to buy electric cars.
The government intending to buy half a significant shares will be massive demand, every one will seek to buy those shares first so they can profit off the public money amount to be injected into it.
It would be significant market manipulation. The SEC won't be able to look into it.
I agree that businesses that become a part of social fabric need to have some charter or code to operate by once declared as such, but it's messy stuff
At the moment, the key impediment to this kind of thing is the neoliberal insistence on privatisation of government resources, let alone government business or services. If we elected Coalition governments at any point of procedings, they'd immediately sell off any part share in any business the government owned purely out of ideology.
The problem is that this is not, as I said in my first post, a binary either-or decision. This is a spectrum of choices a government can make, with a full range of differing responses to public-private partnerships., and merely looking at it as an all or nothing scenario isn't productive, IMO.