Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> but collapse the steps together and it's the same as the government saying "give us X shares of the company,"

Great, you've just described taxation.

> which is nationalization -- the government taking control (even fractional control) of a company by force.

How is buying shares on the public market with government money taking control of a company by force? No current shareholder is obligated to sell their shares.

Ah of course, taxation is theft... [1]

> If nothing else, company officers and the board have an obligation to shareholders, which would would not want to see their shares diluted in that way.

Shareholders voluntarily selling their shares to the government does not 'dilute' shares of other shareholders. It doesn't matter if the government's money came from taxing the company, some other company, or individuals.

[1] I'm sorry, but if you want to take advantage of a country's labour force and markets, you are expected to pay taxes. What the government does with that tax money is up to them.



No, here the idea was not taxation, but eventual total confiscation.


Buying something that is voluntarily sold at fair market value is not confiscating it.

1. Government has money. This money is collected through tax revenue, resource royalties, etc.

2. Shareholders of company voluntarily put sell orders on a stock exchange.

3. Government places buy orders on a stock exchange.

4. Repeat #2 and #3 enough times, and the government becomes a majority shareholder.

No part of this involves confiscation, any more then Berkshire-Hathaway buying, and taking a public company private is 'confiscating' it.


That breaks already at step 1. Government does not have the money; instead it passes a new law to pass control of companies to governing party's proxies (in this case, LO) and expropriate the wealth from shareholders.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: