I don’t know, food production and household goods production is owned by a few big names. It would make sense to regulate them, but not sure how you nationalize something like Proctor and Gamble.
Comment on [deleted]
fidodo@lemmy.world 8 months ago
This is a problem due to monopolies. Any industry that is a monopoly should be nationalized or very heavily regulated.
nifty@lemmy.world 7 months ago
fidodo@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Sorry I misworded it. I meant to say any industry that must be a monopoly/trust, so things that are based on scarce or shared resources. Housing, telecom, energy, etc.
Paragone@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I find it is a systems-question, not a political-question,
and I think the correct answer is to have a publically-owned portion of any market, be public/not-for-profit, as a means of enforcing honesty/integrity into that market.
IOW, you don’t nationalize every damn thing, because institutional-mentality is every bit as evil as corporatism-psychopathy-machiavellianism, only different in style…
( anyone who isn’t understanding that … hasn’t tried living & working among it, either in Washington DC or in Canada’s Ottawa, or in whatever England’s equiv, the EU’s equiv, etc. )
you instead make certain that a portion of the oil industry is national, a portion of the (whatever) industry is national, etc, and if there is huge discrepancy between the nationalized-portion & the private-portion, then you go in with criminal-investigators, after the C-suites of the corporations used to gaming the country’s economy.
Putting 3 barracuda in the fish-farm-pen, in order to make all the survivors in the pen be fit is a related concept: same principle, different domain.
You put some not-for-profit operation into the functionally-cartel-domains, & you use those “barracuda” to force integrity into those specific domains.
Do it strategically, not just reactively ( comms, transport, energy, food, journalism, etc )