[Phoneemer]

The main page link to that article says £40 billion. The reason for the difference is a reflection that the amount has been growing as the day goes on and they have forgotten to update.

[Breevereurl]

It reminds me of the old communist bank joke actually.

Polish joke from the Communist era...

A man goes into the Bank of Gdansk to make a deposit. Since he has never kept money in a bank before, he is a little nervous.

"What happens if the Bank of Gdansk should fail?" he asks.

"Well, in that case your money would be insured by the Bank of Warsaw."

"But, what if the Bank of Warsaw fails?"

"Well, there'd be no problem, because the Bank of Warsaw is insured by the National Bank of Poland."

"And if the National Bank of Poland fails?"

"Then your money would be insured by the Bank of Moscow."

"And what if the Bank of Moscow fails?"

"Then your money would be insured by the Great Bank of the Soviet Union."

"And if that bank fails?"

"Well, in that case, you'd lose all your money. But, wouldn't it be worth it?"

[Mypepraipse]

Well, stuff it in your damn mattress. That's a sure way to make all fail. Then the money won't be worth anything.

[Boripiomi]

Socialism is not when the state bails out the wealthy. That's state capitalism. Socialism is when the workers take all the property of the wealthy . . . without compensation!

[Krruqgwt]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
Socialism is not when the state bails out the wealthy. That's state capitalism. Socialism is when the workers take all the property of the wealthy . . . without compensation! Now, now, Comrade Snuggles. "State Capital" is usually shorthand for National Socialism, like the first part of your description.

The latter event in your description is generally labelled "Communism." Socialism involves having the state own big swaths of industry without the capitalists or the workers' associations having much say in running the resulting companies, which are treated as though they have to make a profit, compete in price and maintain trained workforces. Generally, they do not make money; they do set prices; and they employ way more people than any private firm could afford or would need.

[KahiroSamo]

State capitalism seems to be a contradiction in terms .

As in most definitions have "capitalism" be followed by something including 'private ownership of capital'.

[GWRIeEQp]

Though when it is state capitalism, that necessarily implies the state controls the capital, does it not? State =/= private

[Noilemaillilm]

Is there much difference between a state owning 25% of a company and collecting 25% of the profit through dividends, and a state owning none of a company and collecting the 25% of the profits through taxation?
[/rhetorical]

[abOfU9nJ]

All those capitalist in the markets seem to heartily approve of this new socialist system, given the immense stock market rallies today.

[Weislenalkata]

Originally posted by Dauphin
And when it has similar stakes in competitors? So you're saying the gov is going to give me $110bn to startup an insurance company to compete with AIG?

[bubborn]

Well your rhetorical points are flawed.

There is a difference between taxation and government holding equity, as I have explained.

There is also a fundamental problem with government trying to hold equity in every competitor too, which my own rhetorical question should have made rather obvious. (eg. that no government could fund everyone with half a brain that decided to go for the free billions, at least not without Zimbabwe style inflation.)

It's also patently obvious that government does not hold equal equity in all competitors.

[catarleriarly]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I don't see what the problem with this is.

Not because I don't see fundamental differences. Your question was:

"Is there much difference between a state owning 25% of a company and collecting 25% of the profit through dividends, and a state owning none of a company and collecting the 25% of the profits through taxation?"

[crestorinfo]

Originally posted by Aeson


Your question was:

"Is there much difference between a state owning 25% of a company and collecting 25% of the profit through dividends, and a state owning none of a company and collecting the 25% of the profits through taxation?" And....?

I could have said "Is there any/much/no" or "What is the". You're choosing to bold means nothing to me.

[Gypejeva]

Originally posted by Dauphin

Not because I don't see fundamental differences. Come on, the difference is obvious.

A levy on profits is indiscriminate. If the state has part ownership, then the state can influence internal bank decisionmaking in ways it simply can't if all it does is get a cut on profits.

That beyond the obvious difference than stake + part of profits > part of profits. After all, the state can claim its equity stake on its balance books as well.

[scemHeish]

Originally posted by Aeson


That is why your question was flawed. It promoted a fallacious premise that there was no real difference between taxation and holding equity. The fact that the answer is yes makes it a flawed question?

[brraverishhh]

Originally posted by GePap


Come on, the difference is obvious. Not to some, obviously.

[realfan87]

I'm really not getting what your problem with the question is.

[courlerwele]

I get the difference, you are just complaining about me being loose in my construct. I just don't get why it's bugging you.

[Pedsshuth]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I get the difference, you are just complaining about me being loose in my construct. I just don't get why it's bugging you. Whatever point you were intending initially needed clarification. It could have been a "yes" or a "no". I responded with the "yes" and why. Then you replied to me specifically, with another rhetorical along the same vein as the first. At that point you obviously were not trying to illuminate the issue for those who didn't see the differences, as you later claimed, because I had already clearly stated that there were differences.

I would have been willing to accept that you were promoting a "yes" before then, but not after. I had given the "yes" and you responded argumentatively rather that to confirm or clarify.

[Rategbee]

Originally posted by Aeson
That would entirely depend on tax rates and amount of equity held. It could go either way based on how those were set. In one case you get taxes and a share of the profit, and in the other case you only get taxes.

No. It favors the corporations which are held by government over competitors who are not held by government. I don't think these corporations want the government to be shareholders. Certainly the US corporations don't want that.