Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Is It Time to Rethink State Ownership of Corporations?

By Jay Walljasper, AlterNet. Posted October 6, 2008.


In the midst of a financial meltdown, a German brewery that's defying expectations raises questions about the role of government in the economy.
Advertisement

At a moment's notice, the old rules and certainties about our economy have been tossed out the window.

For almost 30 years, the clear message from corporate headquarters, economic gurus and Washington itself has been that government has no useful role to play in business. Deregulate everything in sight and then let the market can work its magic--that was Ronald Reagan's recipe for prosperity, which was eventually endorsed by most Democrats.

And it worked--in a few select places. Tony suburbs and upscale urban enclaves around the country lavished in luxurious excess not seen since the day of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. (Remember the annual December news reports of Wall Street traders spending $200-$400-$600-and-more on individual bottles of wine to celebrate the arrival of their annual bonus?)

Meanwhile, most Americans struggled to stay afloat as good jobs dwindled and wages declined in terms of buying power. Is it any wonder that people took out dubious loans during a time when the housing boom seemed the only way to get ahead financially?

That bubble has dramatically burst, and government intervention in the economy is being demanded--right now with no questions asked!--by the high rollers who amassed fortunes thanks to business deregulation. The federal government--long reviled by business leaders--is now supposed to take over doomed companies to protect top dogs in the financial industry.

But let's stop and minute and think about this. If it's such a splendid idea for the state to assume control of a failing company, with taxpayers covering the losses, then it must be an even better idea for government to run successful companies that don't lose billions of dollars and provide the public with important services.

In this brand new era, when the old economic theories no longer apply, we owe it to ourselves to take a second look at state ownership of businesses--an idea scorned ever since Reagan, Thatcher and their free market comrades seized control of the world economy in the 1980s.

In recent years billions of dollars of assets in publicly-owned telephone, broadcasting, railroad, airline, health care and key industrial companies around the world have been handed over to private investors in what amounts to the largest enclosure of the economic commons in human history. Once public property that citizens could influence through their elected officials, these socially strategic businesses are not accountable to anyone today but their shareholders, who often don't even live in the country.

We should explore government ownership in certain industries as another way to restore the commons, along with reforms such as worker cooperatives, community and non-profit ownership, re-regulation of corporations and support for socially-beneficial entrepreneurs. Housing, transportation, and insurance, for instance, are basic public services that should be viewed as a social commons rather than solely as an opportunity for investors to reap profits.

And, judging by the success of a small government-owned brewery in Germany, even industries that do not provide basic services might benefit the public if they were run by the state. (This depends, of course, on whether you see beer as a basic public services like many Germans do.)

I learned about the remarkable success of the Rothaus Brewery, owned since 1806 by the German state of Baden-Württemberg, not in some unreconstructed lefty journal or wild-eyed nouveau-Marxist website, but the New York Times.

What makes Rothaus newsworthy to the Times is not its ownership structure, but the fact that it has doubled business since 1992 while beer sales throughout Germany, dominated by huge corporate breweries like Lowenbrau and Beck's, have plunged 13 percent. This small brewery has accomplished this feat without any radio or TV advertising. Loyal beer drinkers, especially young ones, carry out the company's marketing strategy by telling their friends about Rothaus.

"Even the fact that it is wholly owned by the state of Baden-Württemberg lends it a sense of homeyness in a rootless era," the Times reports. "That, in turn, has given it creditability with anti-corporate, anti-globalization crowd. In Germany, where capitalism is viewed with deep mistrust and populism is on the upswing, that is not such a small audience."

The beer is particularly popular in cosmopolitan Berlin. "I could never identify myself with a beer like Beck's," notes Basti Wisbar, 31, a bartender in at Waldorheule, a tavern in the countercultural neighborhood of Kreuzberg.

What makes matters even more interesting is that the state-owned Rothaus brewery is managed by a former politician from the Christian Democrat party, Germany's leading conservative force. The Christian Democrats have dominated Baden-Württemberg's politics since 1948, but the popular state-owned brewery has never been put up for privatization.

In light of dramatic changes in our economy right now, Americans might be advised to follow the lead of Germany's radical beer drinkers and conservative politicians by experimenting with government ownership of some businesses as way to promote a commons-based society--where a mix of economic approaches can spread prosperity more widely and better withstand financial upheavals.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economy, financial crisis, rothaus

Jay Walljasper is editor of OnTheCommons.org, a news and culture website devoted to recognizing the importance of the commons -- those things that belong to all of us -- in modern life.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This will not work with a government as corrupt as the US has right now
Posted by: jparsons on Oct 6, 2008 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a myth that "private business" does a better
job of running things than a government. I fully
support the idea of a government owning community
assets like electricity, water, roads, etc. These
need to be under some semblance of community control,
and private business just waves "commercial
sensitivity" and somehow wins every time.

But until the USA isn't owned by the megacorps,
don't expect government ownership to improve
anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At the very least, Exxon, Shell & Mobil
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Oct 7, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
should be taken over by the government and NATIONALIZED. These are OUR RESOURCES--NOT Exxon-Shell & Mobil's. Though we think of them that way. All they do is to extract oil from the ground and then refine it to various grades.

Who understands that, is Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela and longtime foe of American oil companies. He nationalized oil, saying it's the people's resource. (This is known as SOCIALISM. Big no-no, here in the land of Corporate.)

And now--alone upon its still Big Oil dominated Latin American neighbor countries--Venezuela has the highest standard of living in South America. How can they not, when gas at the pump oveer there, goes for @ A NICKEL A GALLON???

As a result, its middle class--the true 'wealth' standard of any society--is not only thriving, but so is manufacturing, jobs, etc--Venezuelan society now is almost on a vertical line upward, on any sociology scale.

The rest of those countries, beholden to our very own Big Oil, are staggering alone, enviously eyeing Hugo (aka, "Duh Dicktater" as none other than Bush--LOL!!!--describes Chavez)and trying to do as much cross-border gas buying as they can. Because gas in those poor, UNSOCIALIZED countries, is about what gas is, here: @$4/5 gallon.

Gee: I think that I LIKE SOCIALISM!!! I sure wish that I could roll up to US gas pumps and fill MY tank at, a nickel a gallon! I'd think that I died & went to heaven!

I don't wanna go to Venezuela to see and appreciate that--I want it HERE and I WANT IT NOW!

Imagine, people--no more putting only 3 or 4 gallons tops in your car and keeping your fingers crossed that your vehicle doesn't run out of gas before you can cash your ever-shrinking paycheck and--first purchase--run to the gas pump and get maybe--THREE MORE gallons of gas! Whoopee!

Now take that buck something that it might take--say, at a nickel a gallon and for the biggest SUVs--hmmm...what's the tank capacity for an Escalade? 25 gallons? (I'm just guessing, here)

If it is around that--and gas at the pump was NATIONALIZED like it is in Venezuela--why then your 25 gallon fillup would cost--let's see now--oh! OK, wow--a whole BUCK TWENTY FIVE!

Even at today's ever-shrinking salaries, gas wouldn't be a problem!

(Oooh...Socialism (except for thieving bankers, to the tune of 700 BILLION)--BAD! BAD!
Get outta here, you Commie sympathizer!) Hah?
COMMIE? I said, SOCIALIST! (and the two are completely different.)

Imagine (as someone once sang, about a different subject altogether yet not unrelated, as Iraq shows all of us now) no more cars left gas-less on the side of the road.

No more mortgages (a whole 'nother story) with exploding ARMS tacked onto them--hell, with gas that low you could LOOK for decent jobs as well as actually GET TO THEM! And anyway you could--if gas wasn't high--maybe even afford to PAY the exploded mortgages!

Who knows. With anybody but Bush. Imagine...

I see cars on the side of the road. Good cars. Now I know why they're there. I feel so damn bad for my fellow Americans everywhere.

All because, in the year 2000 AND in 2004--a lot more people stayed home from the polls. Each one thinking, well, my little vote won't change anything (2004) and, in 2000--well, Bush stole the election BUT HE WON'T GET AWAY WITH IT; THOSE VOTES WILL BE RECOUNTED...and anyway, we were just getting off the preceding 8 years of the strongest and best economy that America had ever produced, courtesy of Bill Clinton. How could anything go wrong again?

(Meanwhile, Election Day will be great for getting the kids to the dentist--doctor...whatever...buying groceries, scanning the sales, maybe taking in dinner and a show--but hey, who needs to vote, right? Yada yada yada...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds like fascism to me.
Posted by: James W. Harris on Oct 7, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let the government run the corporations, then soon, they'll be running the workers, too. See how you like it when the likes of GEORGE BUSH is in charge of your job and paycheck.

The current corporate state has nothing in common with capitalism. It's crony capitalism, a cousin to outright fascism.

Far better to end the billions of dollars in corporate welfare and gov't favors to special interests.

That would end the abuses of corporations far better than giving the maniacs and idiots who run the government EVEN MORE POWER AND INFLUENCE THAN THEY HAVE NOW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Different philosophies, different stye
Posted by: peterjkraus on Oct 7, 2008 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, state-owned and -run businesses have been an important factor in post-war Germany's financial and political success. Volkswagen, begun as a state-run propaganda tool serving Hitler's aims, was turned over to the post-war German government in the late Forties, and remained that way until a part-privatization in the early Seventies (and, actually, one of their largest shareholders is still the state of Niedersachsen). A large number of corporations work fine along those lines. But the political philosophy is different from ours, with much more grass roots involvement that has spawned a number of political parties (five of which comprise the German Bundestag, the parliament, guaranteeing a diversity of opinion, representation and vote)and the German view of a workable economic system is very much influenced by their Soziale Marktwirtschaft -- a social market economy, the thought of which would drive your average mom and pop American (for whom anything beginning with "social" is a sure sign of Beelzebub's involvement) back into the arms of your friendly neighborhood stockbroker. Soziale Marktwirtschaft works fine .... check out Germans' standard of living.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it's about scale
Posted by: stuarts on Oct 10, 2008 7:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The larger an organization, be it public or private, the less efficiently it will be run. Private, for profit companies are no less subject to this rule. I worked for a VERY large company for 11 years. The joke was that floors 6 and 7 were for the pure purpose of throwing as much money out the window as quickly as possible. It took forever to get things done. I now contract to small boutique companies doing the same work. We produce the same work in a small fraction of the time.

So, an entity as large as a state utility will be run poorly by the state as well as private interests. However, at least the state run entity will be accountable and more interested in service than profit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]