Talk:State-owned enterprise/Archives/2014

YPF - Not a monopoly

I just changed the cell for YPF to lightgreen since YPF does not hold monopoly in Argentina, neither in exploration, sales, production or refinement of petroleum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.12 (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove Pharmacy Section

Can we remove this section? It seems redundant having this here if countries with public healthcare can pay for pharmaceutical services. It doesn't make them government-owned, but it's an industry where government funding is huge. Also, most countries haven't entertained the idea of having a government-owned pharmacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.168.175 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about USA in the Summary box

Not sure whether it was some over-zealous free marketeer but in the summary box it claims the US government is not owned in any businesses at all whereas in the rest of the article it states many corporations (particularly financial and industrial) that the US government (albeit in some cases only recently) have taken over.

Do more boxes (such as industry and finance) need to be added, existing ones need to be altered or is omeone trying to protect the USA's perfect score? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.71.187 (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Also should healthcare be changed now, and what's up with listing USPS and then saying it doesn't have a mixed postal service? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.28.121 (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Some editors are relying on a court ruling that the USPS is not a corporation. But the summary table actually creates the false impression that the USPS is owned by someone other than the government. The simple truth is that postal services in the US are a federal government service regardless of the legal niceties of what type of entity it is. I can't find a single country where postal services are not a government function, so maybe postal services should simply be removed entirely. Roger (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In theory, the EU requires that the government should allow private competition in postal services. This doesn't mean that such all-services-offered corporations would crop up immediately, but some companies have already made minor progress in some specialized postal services (such as delivering newspapers in major cities). --vuo (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, the USPS indeed isn't a government owned corporation. It is instead a federal government agency, a direct branch of the US federal government. This is actually a closer level of control than being a US government owned corporation would be. A government owned corporation a legally distinct entity, the USPS isn't, it's a division of the federal government. Just like the FBI or US Navy is part of the government, not some government owned corporation. An example of the a government controlled corporation would be the Tennessee Valley Authority. Now, the TVA is incorporated under its own special law, it has specific duties and obligations spelled out, it issues no stock (is, in fact, prohibited from doing so) and is wholly owned by the federal government, but it's still legally distinct from it. As of right now, it is wholly self-supporting and receives no federal funds, and this is often the case with government owned corporations, but it's not actually relevant either way. A government owned corporation can be wholly government funded, and a government agency can be wholly sustained through an independent revenue stream. Think of it like the difference between a sole proprietorship and a closely held corporation wholly owned by a single individual. In the first case, the business and the person are legally synonymous, in the second, the corporation is technically legally distinct, and can, for instance, own things in its own right. People can sue it if they so wish, and not technically be suing you. Now, the comparison is somewhat stretched, the US is a sovereign entity and you are not, the US incorporated the TVA using its own sovereignity while you would probably rely on that of your states, but its still somewhat valid. The most legally relevant thing in the specific case of the USPS's status is that some people wanted to sue it under the Sherman Antitrust Act. But, the federal government enjoys sovereign immunity, and can't be sued against its will. As it was decided that the USPS was a mere piece of the government, it therefore enjoyed the federal governments sovereign immunity, and couldn't be sued. In contrast, the Tennessee Valley Authority isn't the legally the same as the US government, doesn't enjoy such sovereignty, and could be sued.108.131.118.174 (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What should be changed to the US's healthcare box? Change it to mixed? And what the Hell is up with Canada not having mixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.182.27 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Where shall we draw the line between government-owned and private companies?

Many countries (especially in Europe, due to pressure from Bruxxels) have turned their postal, railway and phone administrations into regular companies. Sometimes these companies stayed state property (don't have an example), sometimes they were sold entirely (e.g. TNT). Some were sold in part while the other part remains with the government (e.g. DBAG, DTAG, DPAG). Now where shall we draw the line between a state-owned and a private company? Should a company be considerd state-owned if 1% is owned by the government? I think that we should draw the line at 50%. That is, if more than 50% of a company are owned by the government, then it is state-owned. If the government has less than 50% we should consider it a private company. Objections welcome. -- 62.156.52.118 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What about corporations with so-called "Golden Shares", often held by governments in the intermediate stage of privatization, in which one share can outvote all the others in certain specified instances? What about corporations in which the government buys the a majority share of stock merely to ensure its financial stability, intends to sell it off later, and actually has no intention of exercising effective control or changing the makeup of the board of directors in order to pursue its will? The processes of corporate ownership can be complex, it isn't necessarily the case in all instances that a majority of stock immediately renders a company a subsidiary. A stock is merely a legal instrument certain legal rights and responsibilities spelled out in law, you can't necessarily directly equate it with "ownership". Sometimes government controlled corporations don't even have stock, for instance, the TVA is legally prohibited from issuing any.108.131.118.174 (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No criticism section?

Surely this article deserves a criticism section. I'm completely new to the subject but seems clear to me that these must cause problems for free market economies. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The purpose and structure of government owned corporations varies so widely from place to place that it would hardly be possible to do any sort of general criticism section not restricted to a specific locale.108.131.118.174 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)