Talk:Corporatization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Stub | rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale |
[edit] Language
Ben@liddicott.com (Talk | contribs) "the word "Major" is there to let the reader know that the list is not exhaustive, and these are broad headings." You've got railroads, highways, electricity, water. How many more are there? The word major is subjective and can NOT be here. - Jerryseinfeld 23:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
IS CORPORATIZATION AND GOING PUBLIC SAME?
[edit] A Contradiction
…places them in the control of government-owned corporations. This is often seen as a step towards full-scale privatization
This line is oxymoronic; if they're government-owned, they are by definition not private. Therefore this has nothing to do with privatization. Nagelfar 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed. Nagelfar 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
If it's oxymoronic, that is only because corporations are not private entities under any legal regime. Corporations are creatures of the state. The fact that so many corporations behave today as if they were private entities, unencumbered by public responsibilities, reflects the deterioration of the legal framework defining and authorizing the corporation in the first place. See http://www.POCLAD.org/ for the history on this. The fact that one must add the descriptor "government-owned" to the word "corporation" in order to distinguish "private" corporations from "public" corporations is an indication of the degree to we have experienced the privatization of the corporation already . . . Ben Manski
- I agree, it just needed to be clarified for distinguishing between the break down of corporate to state structure. Mostly for purposes of the article being understood in terms of the different connotations of "corporation" being considered as 'privatism run amok' versus 'privatization run amok', the latter I see as more of a misconception as in reality that should be a more laissez faire noncorporate condition. This though, may just be a matter of ones ultimate view of Corporate Personhood. Nagelfar 19:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
